U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–767 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–395 

MAP–21 PREAUTHORIZATION: THE FEDERAL ROLE 

AND CURRENT CHALLENGES TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

EXAMINING HOW STEADY FEDERAL SUPPORT OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS ESSENTIAL TO PROVIDING ROBUST TRANSIT SERVICE 

ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO MEET THE NATION’S MOBILITY NEEDS 

MARCH 6, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

( 

Available at: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KAY HAGAN, North Carolina 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

CHARLES YI, Staff Director 

GREGG RICHARD, Republican Staff Director 

LAURA SWANSON, Deputy Staff Director 

HOMER CARLISLE, Professional Staff Member 

PHIL RUDD, Legislative Assistant 

GREG DEAN, Republican Chief Counsel 

RACHEL JOHNSON, Republican Professional Staff Member 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

TAYLOR REED, Hearing Clerk 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2014 

Page 

Opening statement of Chairman Johnson ............................................................. 1 

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Crapo ................................................................................................... 2 

Senator Menendez ............................................................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Michael P. Melaniphy, President, American Public Transportation 

Association ............................................................................................................ 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Barbara K. Cline, President, Board of Directors, Community Transportation 

Association of America, and Executive Director, Prairie Hills Transit ........... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Larry Hanley, International President, Amalgamated Transit Union ............... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD

Statement submitted by the Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities ............ 64 

(III)

(1) 

MAP–21 PREAUTHORIZATION: THE FEDERAL 

ROLE AND CURRENT CHALLENGES TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN TIM JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. This hearing will come to order. Today the 

Banking Committee will hear from representatives of the public 

transportation industry as the expiration of MAP–21 grows closer. 

Since 1995, annual transit ridership has grown by roughly 3 billion 

trips, and the Federal Government has been essential to this 

growth. 

The Federal Transit Administration provides more than 40 percent of the capital investment in our transit systems. Without Federal funds, our Nation’s cities would not be able to continue essential repairs and upgrades of their infrastructure and vehicles. 

In rural States, the Federal role is critical. Transit providers in 

States like South Dakota use Federal funds both to operate the 

routes and replace buses. Our rural citizens need reliable transportation to make necessary medical and shopping trips, particularly 

when driving or getting a ride from family members is not possible. 

Perhaps the greatest challenge to our Nation’s public transportation providers is the uncertain future of the Highway Trust 

Fund. Both the transit and highway costs are unable to support 

current investments levels, and Congress must act to prevent a 

funding crisis before this fall. 

Without that infusion of new funds, new projects in FY2015 will 

be put on hold and previously approved projects will be delayed. 

This could remove more than $50 billion from the economy, threatening almost 1.8 million jobs that are supported by transit, highway, and highway safety programs. Instead of a short-term fix, it 

is my hope that Congress can provide stability for the trust fund 

and enact a long-term authorization bill of 4 years or longer. 

As the Environment and Public Works Committee developed a 

highway title, and the Finance Committee developed a plan to address the trust fund, the Banking Committee must be prepared to 

offer a public transportation title. As we prepare for the next bill, 

2 

FTA is still working to implement many of the significant reforms, 

about 21 enacted, such as the Transit Safety program. 

Also, the Committee’s ability to change programs will be tied to 

the amount of funding the trust fund can support. As a result, in 

the next bill, I propose fewer programs and policy changes. Today’s 

witnesses will highlight issues that Congress should consider addressing to improve public transportation services. Now I turn to 

Senator Crapo for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE CRAPO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome your 

remarks. I also appreciate your holding this hearing. It was just 

over a month ago that we held a hearing on the ongoing implementation of the transportation authorizing legislation, Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century, or MAP–21. MAP–21 provided 

the Federal Transit Administration with new authority in the area 

of transit safety, and it was helpful to get an update on what 

progress has been made to improve passenger safety. 

I appreciated the recognition from the Federal Transit Administration that new rules must be tailored in a way that is not unduly 

or disproportionately burdensome to smaller and rural systems, 

and the recognition that public transportation simply cannot be 

captured with a one-size-fits-all approach. 

The Banking Committee has a strong record of balancing the 

needs of rural and urban States and I look forward to continuing 

that principle as we move forward toward reauthorization. Today 

our witnesses will focus on the challenges they are facing while 

providing public transportation within their communities. Thank 

you to all of our witnesses for being here today. 

After the expiration of SAFETEA–LU, it took 3 years and then 

10 short-term extensions to get another authorization passed. That 

kind of unpredictability presents serious challenges to many transit 

operators across the country that rely on the ability to leverage 

Federal transit dollars to improve the communities they serve. 

As you all know, MAP–21 programs are only authorized through 

September, but by latest projections, the transit account will be 

running on fumes if it does make it that far. As we discussed in 

the previous hearing, the most difficult issue will be how to finance 

our transportation needs going forward. MAP–21 was financed 

with nontraditional methods and it is imperative that we find a 

swift and meaningful fix to the serious current inadequacies of the 

Highway Trust Fund. 

Again, I thank our witnesses for being here and I look forward 

to your statements. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Crapo. Are there any 

other Members who would like to give a brief opening statement? 

Senator Menendez. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

you and the Ranking Member for holding what I think is an incredibly important hearing and to look at both the challenges and opportunities that MAP–21 presented, you know, I think it was a 

transformational bill that created a new safety and reliability 

3 

framework for our Nation’s transit riders, and having the best 

transit infrastructure possible, especially critical in States like New 

Jersey, one of the most heavily traveled areas of the country. 

According to the American Public Transportation Association, in 

the New York–New Jersey–Connecticut area, there are more than 

4 billion transit trips each year carrying travelers 22 billion passenger miles. Our transit network is a smart growth, quality of life, 

economic issue that is critical to the viability of many New Jersey 

communities and millions of commuters. 

And if we are to be competitive, we need to be invested in our 

infrastructure, which when I look at the DOT’s recently released 

Conditions and Performance Report, it talks about $87 billion simply to bring our transit system to be considered in good repair. To 

me, that is simply unacceptable in a Nation that has traditionally 

led the world in state-of-the-art modernization and investments. 

So I would like to have my full statement entered into the record, 

Mr. Chairman. This is an incredibly important hearing and we look 

forward to working. Your leadership has helped us move forward 

under the MAP–21 and I hope we can build upon that progress as 

we look at reauthorization. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Without objection. 

Senator Warren. None. Now I will introduce our witnesses. Mr. 

Michael Melaniphy is the President of the American Public Transportation Association. Barbara Cline is the Executive Director of 

Prairie Hills Transit in Spearfish, South Dakota. She also serves 

as the President of the Board of Directors of the Community Transportation Association of America. Finally, Larry Hanley is the 

International President of the Amalgamated Transit Union. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. Mr. Melaniphy, 

please begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. MELANIPHY, PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Crapo, 

Members of the Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this morning. I am Michael Melaniphy, President 

and CEO of the American Public Transportation Association. 

Reliable Federal investment is critically important as transit 

stakeholders work to meet growing and diverse ridership demands, 

advance safety improvements, and modernize our aging systems, 

all while facing uncertain Federal funding. Well-designed transit 

service is a catalyst for economic growth. Transit projects shape 

land use and development patterns, generate jobs, stimulate productivity, and advance our national economy. But from the largest 

cities to the smallest towns, our systems are showing the strains 

of chronic underinvestment. 

While we can all understand the appeal of shovel-ready projects, 

prudent transit capital investments are the product of comprehensive and long-range planning decisions. In turn, such planning requires steady long-term investment by all levels of government. 

And the returns on this investment have been substantial. For 

every dollar we invest in public transportation, we generate about 

four dollars in economic benefit. And $1 billion in Federal transit 

4 

investment fosters productivity gains that create or sustain 50,000 

jobs. 

As these metrics make clear, local and regional transportation 

improvements yield national benefits. At a time when all these factors dictate far greater transit funding, we face the serious threat 

of cuts to the Federal program due to trust fund revenue shortfalls. 

In crafting MAP–21, Congress rejected the notion of retreating 

from its long-standing role in supporting public transportation, and 

supplemented trust fund revenues with a transfer from the general 

fund. While this approach worked for a 2-year bill like MAP–21, it 

does not provide funding predictability and does nothing to support 

needed growth. 

In my written testimony, I provide some specific examples of how 

transit agencies would be impacted by the loss of Federal funding. 

Let me assure you that transit agencies remain committed to providing the highest and safest level of service for their riders and 

would make every effort to mitigate the effects of any Federal funding cuts. 

But the potential for service reductions, fare increases, and cuts 

to capital projects is all too real. Our smaller transit systems would 

likely be the first to feel the impacts because they often rely on 

Federal funding for a greater portion of basic operating costs than 

larger agencies with broader revenue sources. 

To ensure reliable long-term funding best suited for infrastruc- ture investment, APTA urges Congress to enact a 6-year, $100 billion bill to grow the transit program from the current $10.7 billion 

level to $22 billion by 2020. Our funding proposal is robust because 

our needs are real. 

Highway Trust Fund revenues must increase to support program 

growth. Specifically, our proposal calls for increased funding for 

capital investment grants, state of good repair, bus and bus facilities, and the core formula programs. 

Recognizing that large, but infrequent bus capital projects are 

challenging to address with limited formula programs, APTA recommends restoring a discretionary component to the bus program 

and boosting overall bus funding to pre-MAP–21 levels. 

For several research, standards, and training programs where 

transit stakeholders face common challenges nationwide, the Federal Government is best suited to take the lead. To restore funding 

predictability to these programs, we recommend they be authorized 

as a set-aside from the urban formula program. With greater annual funding certainty, we can maximize the returns on this relatively modest investment. 

Assisting communities in the wake of disasters will remain a 

fundamental role of the Federal Government. We support MAP– 

21’s public transportation emergency relief program and urge Congress to fully and promptly fund transit relief and reconstructions 

projects in times of need. 

Communities across the country know that public transportation 

is a smart investment and have found creative ways to advance 

projects, but they cannot do it alone. As our impending Highway 

Trust Fund revenue shortfall makes clear, funding uncertainty 

delays capital investments and drives up project costs. APTA’s recommendations reflect our belief that Federal funding for transporVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Dec 19, 2014 Jkt 046629 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\HEARINGS 2014\03-06 Z DISTILL\30614.TXT JASON
5 

tation is a wise investment in American jobs, American communities, and American economic competitiveness. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I look forward to questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Ms. Cline, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA K. CLINE, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION 

OF AMERICA, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRAIRIE HILLS 

TRANSIT 

Ms. CLINE. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me today to discuss 

MAP–21 reauthorization and the vital role and the future of community and public transportation. My name is Barb Cline and I am 

here today representing both the Community Transportation Association of America, as its Board president, and Prairie Hills Transit 

in Spearfish, South Dakota as its Executive Director. 

CTAA is a national, nonprofit membership organization for transit agencies, officials and advocates supporting rural and small 

urban and specialized operators. Prairie Hills Transit serves a 

12,000-square-mile service area and grew from an operation that 

started with the old green van in the back parking lot in 1989 to 

one today comprised of 38 vehicles and 50 employees operating in 

six South Dakota counties and serving two Native American reservations. 

We operate out of a full-service intermodal transit facility that 

provides local residents with mobility options and even houses licensed child care. I appreciate the opportunity to bring the perspective of both CTAA and Prairie Hills Transit to you this morning. 

We believe that mobility is a basic right for all Americans, one that 

requires Federal investment paired with support from State, county, and local governments, as well as private sector partnerships. 

Nothing could be more important to the future mobility of rural 

and small urban America than Congress reauthorizing surface 

transportation legislation, on time and with the resources these 

communities rely on. Rural and small urban communities depend 

on the support of Federal programs to a greater degree than their 

large urban counterparts. A State investment is often inconsistent 

and local resources are strained. There are no rainy day funds for 

the majority of small and rural transportation providers. 

The result of no new legislation will be service cuts, disruptions, 

and fare increases. Passengers will be the hardest hit, arriving to 

work late or not at all, and missing life-sustaining medical appointments. The basic independence of many rural residents will be 

threatened. 

Demand for rural and small urban transit is growing and is why 

increased investment in Section 5311 and 5307 is vital. In the third 

quarter of 2013, ridership in transit systems in communities with 

populations under 100,000 was the fastest growing segment in the 

transit industry. Ridership in these small communities has grown 

every year for the past 5 years. 

The prime example of the need for Federal investment in rural 

and small urban transit is in the bus and bus facility capital program. In my home State of South Dakota, out of 337 total vehicles 

6 

in service, 358, more than 95 percent, exceed recommended useful 

life standards. Half of those have been operating for more than 10 

years. At current levels of investment, it would take nearly 20 

years to replace all transit vehicles operating past their retirement 

age. 

New buses increase system capacity, safety, and efficiency, and 

are necessary to meet growing demand. Health care trips in small 

and large communities are inundating transit operations. Back 

home we partner with local hospitals, veterans clinics, 24-hour care 

facilities, dialysis centers, and more to manage transportation for 

some of South Dakota’s most vulnerable populations. 

A 40-mile one-way life sustaining dialysis trip or assisting local 

hospitals with patient discharge, sometimes to another State, are 

just part of what we do every day. I could talk about regulatory reform, mobility management, planning issues and more, but all of 

those are covered in the written testimony that we hope will be 

part of this hearing’s official record. Our written testimony also includes an important new report on the impact of chronic illness 

management on community and public transportation. 

In closing, it is an honor to testify before the Senate Banking 

Committee this morning, and I am most grateful for that opportunity. I would be happy to take any questions when that time arrives. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. Hanley, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY HANLEY, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION 

Mr. HANLEY. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and all 

the Members of the Committee for the opportunity to be here and 

to speak to you about the growing crisis in American transit. I represent the people of the Amalgamated Transit Union. We have 

200,000 members in the U.S. and Canada. Our people drive buses 

and trains throughout the United States, in all 48 contiguous 

States anyway. 

And I want to speak also on behalf of the 35 million people who 

ride buses and trains in the U.S. every day. We have been through 

a transit crisis since the beginning of the recession. Throughout the 

United States, cities have been challenged to continue operating 

their existing service. There has been no help from the Federal 

Government to try and alleviate that problem. 

We have seen 90 percent of the cities in the U.S. raise fares, cut 

service, and with that comes the deterioration of routes that have 

existed for over 100 years, in some places, including my own hometown. The riders are angry and we know it. We see it first. In a 

lot of ways, bus drivers are the canary in the coal mine for these 

problems. The angry riders are now boarding buses in record numbers beating up our drivers. 

Remember that our drivers put a uniform on every day and go 

into neighborhoods and become the curbside tax collectors, something that nobody else really has to do. And as they do that and 

they go into areas where they are providing less service, where people have to wait on corners longer, and then they tell people that 

the fares have gone up, they often get beaten up. 

7 

We have a record number of people who have been assaulted 

over the course of the last several years, and it is a growing problem and, frankly, an unnecessary one. 

But throughout the U.S., as people have been challenged with 

their transit, they have lot jobs. There are places—and there have 

been stories published often about the fact that with the deterioration of transit services, and in some places such as just outside of 

Atlanta, Georgia, where a county eliminated all of their bus service, people have been left stranded, unable to get to work. 

We need to change completely the way we view transit, especially in light of what is happening in our cities. 81 percent of 

Americans currently live in metropolitan areas and the size of 

those metropolitan areas is about to explode. It is anticipated, in 

the next 20 years, that those populations will grow by one-third, 

and young people today are rejecting the car. 

This is actually good news for America because we will not be 

able to sustain more cars on our roads in coming years. And young 

people today are saying, No, I do not want to even get a driver’s 

license. Fewer young people today hold driver’s licenses as a percentage of the population than did when John F. Kennedy was the 

President. 

That is another canary in the coal mine. That tells us that as cities grow and as younger people reject riding in cars and say, I want 

to ride on transit, this Government has to step up and provide it. 

That requires not only all the things that my colleagues have testified to today in terms of funding, it also requires a vision. You have 

to sit down and say, ‘‘Wait a minute, where are we going in urban 

America? What are the needs going to be in 5 and 10 years?’’ 

In places like New York where it is anticipated in 12 years the 

population of metropolitan New York is going to reach 21 million 

people. Where are they going to go to get to work? So transit is not 

only a huge driver for mobility for Americans, but their mobility is 

what leads to social mobility, and if, in fact, we care about inequality in America, we have to turn and say, ‘‘What are the things that 

enable people to get to work, to be productive citizens? How can we 

energize this economy?’’ And, frankly, this is one place where people have not paid enough attention over the course of the last several years. 

I thank you for the opportunity again and I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Thank you very much for your 

testimony. As we begin questions, I will ask the clerk to put 5 minutes on the clock for each Member. 

Mr. Melaniphy, the Committee has heard from many transit 

agencies that the lack of discretionary bus funding in MAP–21 

makes it difficult to pursue large one-time projects like a bus order. 

APTA calls for significant growth in total Federal funding and a 

bus program that is 50 percent competitive. If Congress is able to 

provide only modest growth, how should a bus program look? 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The program is important to meet the needs of our bus operators across the country. 

As Ms. Cline indicated in her testimony, many of these agencies 

are not able to replace their fleets on a formula program. They canVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Dec 19, 2014 Jkt 046629 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\HEARINGS 2014\03-06 Z DISTILL\30614.TXT JASON
8 

not accumulate the funds quickly enough to fund large capital 

projects before those funds would expire and get swept away. 

It is important that we provide a discretionary component to the 

program so that we can meet these lumpy needs, whether they are 

for buses or transit centers or shelters. Those one-time or infrequent capital projects need to have a way to get funded, and by 

having discretionary opportunities, those projects can get their 

needs met. It is important to find ways to do that, so there is 

equality across all the systems, so that small systems, in particular, are not disproportionately impacted by the lack of a discretionary program. I think it is really important we have both options for formula and discretionary funding. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Ms. Cline, it is good to see you here in 

Washington. How could a competitive bus program be structured to 

be accessible to transit providers of all sizes with predictability in 

the schedule and structure of a discretionary program assist smaller agencies like Prairie Hills? 

Ms. CLINE. Well, I think one of the best ways would be that there 

is a significant dedicated amount, a percentage, that is specifically 

allocated. But keeping in mind that in our small rural States, oftentimes we do not have that person that is a grant writer. Oftentimes it is myself; in other systems, it is exactly the same way. And 

so, we need to have adequate time to be able to put together that 

information and we need to have a dedicated amount that will get 

us up to the level that we need to be. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Hanley, ATU’s reauthorization proposal 

makes a number of recommendations to improve ADA paratransit 

service comparable to fixed road service. What are the best means 

to assess the quality of paratransit service in communities? 

Mr. HANLEY. I would guess how people feel about the systems. 

We do not do analysis on a regular basis in local areas about paratransit. We have a very strong sense of what is happening out 

there, and the problem is that there have not been funds made 

available to agencies to operate their systems, and this is general. 

This not just paratransit. 

But as the needs of America have grown for more paratransit 

and nobody has stepped up to provide the amount of funding that 

these systems need, there have been strains placed on them. There 

are places where systems are actually cutting back on the service 

they provide to people in need of paratransit. But also, there is a 

strain on the general budget of these agencies because there is a 

bias in Washington that we will not provide operating aid to transit systems anymore, at least large transit systems. 

So frankly, I think that the systems are underfunded and that 

we need to reopen the discussion, as Senator Clinton did about operating transit systems. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Ms. Cline, you testified at a field hearing 

last year about how important health care trips under Medicaid are 

to your riders. In other States, the Committee hears about Medicaid agencies and nonemergency medical transportation trip brokers that do not coordinate with transit providers. How would your 

riders be hurt if Medicaid trips in South Dakota were not easily reimbursed? 

9 

Ms. CLINE. Well, I can tell you that a big share of the trips that 

we provide are for individuals accessing Medicaid benefits. So for 

those riders, it would also affect our ability to provide transportation simply because that is one of the too largest ways that our 

program is funded, is with Medicaid support by providing those 

trips. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. People often think of 

Idaho as a rural State and it is mostly, but urban transportation 

is increasingly a bigger deal there. I want to focus on rural transportation first, though, and I think I will start with you, Ms. Cline. 

What do think are the biggest issues facing rural transportation 

today? 

Ms. CLINE. Boy, there is a lot. But without increased operating 

dollars and an increase in both bus and bus facility funding. I 

think the major thing that small rural systems are going to see is 

that it strains their budgets so far that we are going to actually 

see a reduction in service. Costs of fuel goes up, just the cost of 

managing the programs. I think you are going to see a reduction 

of service probably to the most frail and elderly folks that need to 

cover long distances. 

Senator CRAPO. I noticed in your testimony you referenced the 

disproportionate impact of regulatory burdens as well on rural systems and small urban systems, also. 

Ms. CLINE. Right. 

Senator CRAPO. In our hearing last month, the Federal Transit 

Administration recognized that new rules need to be tailored in a 

way that, frankly, do not unduly disproportionately burden our 

smaller and our rural systems. Rural operators already have a 

strong record of safety. So what can we do on this front? What 

would you recommend? 

Ms. CLINE. Well, safety is obviously one of the most important 

things that we focus on routinely. Any additional regulatory burdens would require additional staffing, and with additional staffing 

obviously comes the financial investment that is necessary in order 

to add those people, pay those people, making sure that the statistical data that were required to compile is really something that is 

important. It is, again, an additional burden. 

In South Dakota, the safety piece, for instance, South Dakota has 

not had a fatality in the last 10 years. Do we really need additional 

regulatory burdens on those systems? 

Senator CRAPO. Good point. Do either of the other two witnesses 

want to comment on this before I move on? Mr. Melaniphy. 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Thank you, Senator. Safety is comprised of 

many different components. It is the operation, it is the people, and 

it is the equipment, and all these compartments require long-term 

investment. When agencies are operating equipment, as Ms. Cline 

touched on, that is oftentimes more than 10 years old, very high 

mileage, that impacts safety, reliability, and dependability. With 

long-term dedicated funding and with the ability to access discretionary funding to meet those needs, they can put newer, safer, 

more environmentally friendly equipment into service, and that is 

going to benefit the communities. 

10 

Mr. HANLEY. I just add that the Congress needs to pay more attention to some of the escape doors that particularly private companies are finding to avoid regulation. There is one that happened 

right here in Washington, DC, where a private company that provides paratransit for WMATA removed one of the seats from each 

of their vans to escape Federal drug testing regulations. 

So that people that are now riding around in vans who are disabled in Washington, DC, have drivers that are not drug-tested, despite the fact that this is a policy of the Federal Government, and 

they got around it by removing a seat so they had, instead of nine 

seats, eight seats in their vans. 

And there have been other stories that have come out about bonuses being given in these companies to managers that cut corners 

and make more profit, and that almost always comes at the expense of safety. So I would caution that we really need to pay close 

attention to what they are doing out there and not abandon strong 

regulations, and also strong enforcement of those regulations with 

analysis that goes with it. 

Senator CRAPO. That is a good point. We need to make sure we 

protect safety and soundness. We also need to make sure that we 

do not overburden the regulatory structure so that our smaller systems face difficulties. With the short time I have left, I just cannot 

resist, Mr. Hanley, coming back to something you said in your testimony. 

I just want you to explain it a little bit more to me if you would, 

and that is, if I heard you correctly, you said that there are fewer 

people today who hold driver’s licenses than in the time of JFK. Is 

that—— 

Mr. HANLEY. No. What I said is that fewer young people, as a 

percentage of their population, are holding driver’s licenses. They 

do not drive cars the way that we did when we were kids. They 

do not get licenses. They have chosen public transit and that is 

part of why you see the numbers growing so well in cities, people 

riding transit. 

Senator CRAPO. All right, thank you. 

Mr. HANLEY. It is a global trend, by the way. It is all over the 

world. 

Senator CRAPO. That is very interesting. Thank you very much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for your testimony. I want to particularly thank you, Mr. Hanley, for your very thoughtful and eloquent sort of discussion of how 

this issue has broad impact on equality, access to work, you know, 

getting your share of the American dream. I thank you for that. 

Your colleagues up in Division 618 in Rhode Island have just celebrated their 100th anniversary, so you represent some very dedicated and thoughtful men and women, so thank you for that. 

But a point you raise is a very serious one, is that there are increasing physical threats and other threats to transit systems 

throughout the country, not just in the northeast, but across the 

country. And there are also, as we understand, there are systems, 

big city systems, that have their own transit police forces, but I do 

not think that is the case in South Dakota and it is not the case 

11 

in Rhode Island either. So we depend—the transit system essentially has to provide its first line of defense and protection. 

MAP–21 narrowed the capital investment flexibility for crime 

prevention security so that the funds that previously could be used 

under rules and regulations to invest in cameras, communication 

devices, et cetera, for security purposes, that is not now under 

MAP–21. So my sense, Mr. Hanley, is you would urge us to go back 

and look at that and try to provide more resources for physical security for bus systems across the country. 

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you, Senator. Yes, you know, I speak now 

as a bus driver, as somebody who has been assaulted driving a bus. 

It is something that has gone on, particularly in times of economic 

downturn. It expands as an issue for us and we believe that what 

needs to be done, in addition to providing adequate police protection is a reengineering of the bus operator’s work station. 

They have, over the course of the last several years, been installing in buses aftermarket protectors, you know, windows that have 

been put up around the driver to protect the driver from assault. 

The problem is that it is a very uncomfortable set-up for a driver. 

Nobody has looked at reengineering driver’s work stations in the 

last 40 years. 

We think that what has to happen is that funding has to be provided, but also agencies have to be encouraged, when they order 

buses, to actually do a study of what a driver’s needs are and build 

in the engineering—build into the engineering bus driver protection. 

Senator REED. So the first step is for both the manufacturers and 

the transit agencies to come up with state-of-the-art equipment and 

then our role would be to authorize on the capital investment necessary to do that? 

Mr. HANLEY. We would actually like you to bring pressure on the 

companies to do this because it is rarely a high priority for them. 

Senator REED. Thank you. Now let me turn to Mr. Melaniphy 

and Ms. Cline. Can you just give us a sense of what happens first 

in terms if we fail to extend the trust fund? And even if we extend 

the trust fund with current levels, my sense is we are still going 

to fall way behind the growing need of transit systems for investment, capital improvements, all sorts of things. So in a very few 

minutes, perhaps a minute, in a minute you can enlighten us. 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Yes, Senator. I think this ties to Mr. Hanley’s 

comments as well. When you provide long-term funding certainty, 

then the private sector is able to make long-term investments. It 

is hard to make major investments in R&D. I know, as I used to 

be a vehicle manufacturer in North Dakota. It is hard to make 

those investments if you are operating under short-term CRs. 

If you have got long-term certainty, you can make those investments for doing innovative new things, and funding research to 

help create standards across the industry is very important for that 

as well. 

As we look at the agencies, whether they are in Rhode Island or 

South Dakota, wherever they are in the country, funding uncertainty depends in part on agency size. Some agencies have multiple 

funding sources, some have dedicated local funding, some have capital reserves. Smaller systems tend to be more dependent on FedVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Dec 19, 2014 Jkt 046629 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\HEARINGS 2014\03-06 Z DISTILL\30614.TXT JASON
12 

eral funds for their operating costs. Larger systems tend to have 

Federal funds more focused on the capital side. 

They will all be impacted. And as you touched on, Senator Reed, 

there is no question that we have a state of good repair backlog 

that must be addressed to have safe, reliable, dependable service 

at the same time that we have the highest ridership in public transit this country has seen in more than 50 years. 

Senator REED. Thank you. And Ms. Cline, your comments? 

Thank you. 

Ms. CLINE. And I would say that even with the last 2-year bill, 

our resources are already stretched so far. Oftentimes I call it a 

shoestring budget. We do not have the ability to stretch any further. I think we would see severe disruption in service, perhaps 

service cuts from some of our long distance trips, and those are 

very vital to those individuals. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Warren. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Crapo for holding this hearing and thank 

you all for being here. I want to go back to something I asked about 

in the January hearing that we had on MAP–21, and that is about 

how Congress has said in the program to distribute the money. 

As we know, there are two ways that the money can be distributed. Part of it can be distributed through a very fixed formula. It 

goes so much to States and so much to localities by a set formula. 

And then part of it is potentially left to the discretion of the FTA, 

so that a locality or a State can bid competitively in order to be 

able to do that in that process. 

And that historically, the money has been divided about 80–20. 

That is, that 80 goes to a fixed formula and about 20 goes to discretionary spending. But that under MAP–21, we switched over to 91 

percent goes by formula and there is only 8 percent left for discretionary spending, and that means very clearly in the last authorization, we moved away from more discretion. 

So in the January hearing, I asked the Federal Transit Administrator Rogoff about whether the sharp decrease in discretionary 

funding had an impact, and what he pointed out is that it made 

it much more difficult for transit agencies, and particularly for bus 

operators, to take on big projects like constructing new maintenance facilities. 

So I just wanted to go down the panel, if I could here, and see 

if I could get some kind of quick answer about whether you think 

the decrease in discretionary funding, as a proportion of MAP–21, 

has made it harder for State and local agencies to make the necessary large dollar investments that they need to make. And I 

thought I might start with you, Mr. Melaniphy. 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Thank you, Senator. I think it is a two-part answer. First, we must restore historic funding levels that have provided a good balance in the bus and bus facilities program in relation to new starts and state of good repair. So having good funding 

levels in all those is certainly important. 

Then, agencies must have the ability to meet those one-time 

needs. You may only build a new garage every 40 years or replace 

vehicles every 10, 12, 15 years, but to be able to meet those lumpy 

13 

needs, you need to have that discretion that the bus program just 

does not address now in a clean, equitable way. 

Senator WARREN. Ms. Cline, could you add to that, please? 

Ms. CLINE. Yes. We were not in favor, of course, of the cut, but 

an example in case is that in South Dakota currently, of the 24 vehicles that were requested this year, we were able to award eight 

vehicle replacement bids. So it is a serious situation. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you. And Mr. Hanley. 

Mr. HANLEY. I think discretion can be a good thing, but also that 

the Federal Government needs to establish some standard for what 

the return on investment is for these local agencies. I could give 

you some very annoying facts about the way in which some agencies, particularly in New York, have spent their capital funds, you 

know, spending huge amounts of money that will serve very few 

people. 

So I do think that there has to be some analysis of how that 

comes out on the other end. Although generally as a rule, I would 

say discretion for local agencies to figure these things out is a good 

thing. 

Senator WARREN. Well, I appreciate it and I think that is actually a very good point about what kind of constraints you want to 

put in this. We all want to spend our Federal dollars in the most 

effective way possible, and I am just concerned about the move to 

formulate funding and hope that this is one of the things we will 

think about as we talk about the reauthorization of MAP–21, how 

the dollars are divided up. 

But now I want to go to the point you were raising and that is 

how many dollars we put into this system. As you know, infrastructure investment creates jobs, both in the short-term and in the 

long-term. In Massachusetts, across the country, we have roads 

and bridges that are in need of repair. We have rail and mass transit expansion projects that would allow businesses to grow. We do 

a good job of identifying our transportation needs, but that is only 

half the equation. 

The second is how we pay for infrastructure repairs and upgrades. So when MAP–21 was enacted last July, it was partially 

funded by increasing the PBGC pension insurance premiums by 40 

percent over 2 years, and through pension smoothing, which allows 

companies to contribute less to the pension funds now, but can 

leave those plans underfunded in the future. 

This raises money in a 10-year budget window, but ultimately, 

it means that retirees and future retirees will potentially be on the 

hook here. Investing in infrastructure is critical to our future, but 

we should not be doing it on the backs of retirees that way this was 

funded in the past. 

The Highway Trust Fund has been funding critical projects for 

over half a century by taxing gasoline and diesel fuel, but now we 

are facing a serious dilemma. The trust fund is nearly empty. Increasing fuel efficiency means that we are bringing in less revenue. 

So we all have the same concerns about rail and mass transit. 

Raising ticket prices means that we will end up funding the system 

on the backs of those who have fixed incomes, retirees who have 

to rely on mass transit. So what I really want to bring this down 

to is where we are going to get the money. 

14 

When Congress says no more spending no matter what even on 

important things like mass transit, like roads and bridges, what 

they are really saying is they would rather preserve tax loopholes 

that primarily benefit a few people rather than make the investment in infrastructure that benefits the whole economy. 

So I see that I am out of time and I will just simply ask the question, if you could answer very briefly. You could probably give this 

a yes or no. Are we underinvesting in our mass transit and our infrastructure spending? And I will start the other way. Mr. Hanley. 

Mr. HANLEY. Outrageously so, particularly in light of what I 

have pointed out about young people in America and the growing 

population of our cities. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you. 

Ms. CLINE. Definitely. 

Senator WARREN. That is strong. 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Absolutely. We need increased funding for global competitiveness. We must invest. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for running over. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Melaniphy, if Congress fails to provide 

stable formula funds after MAP–21 expires, what will be the effects 

on APTA’s private sector members that supply vehicles and products to the public transportation industry? 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The public transportation industry, when you look at how we build rolling stock, is not 

like building a building where you source your bricks and wooden 

materials locally. These are components that are built in big factories and they supply the Nation, whether they are building locomotives in Idaho, buses in Alabama, or rail cars in upstate New 

York. 

These supply nationwide. When I helped manage a bus manufacturing factory in North Dakota, we had 3,000 suppliers that supplied that factory from all over the Nation and brought good-paying, high tech, highly skilled and well-benefited jobs to that part 

of the country. 

So it is important that we continue to invest to give that longterm stability. If we are only going along on short-term funding, 

you cannot make that long-term investment in R&D and sustainability with your vendor base, and what happens is we lose suppliers. We have lost any number of bus suppliers in this country 

because the market has become so unstable and small. 

We must have long-term funding in order to create an environment where people want to invest long-term, they want to hire 

long-term, and keep people there so we are not losing those highly 

skilled jobs in this market space. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Hanley, what would be an appropriate 

timeline for changes to bus designs to promote driver safety? How 

should FTA facilitate discussions on this issue? 

Mr. HANLEY. Well, FTA is calling—I am sorry—DOT is calling a 

summit to examine the assaults on transit workers and we think 

that is a good step forward. We should immediately begin the process because it takes about 12 years to cycle buses throughout the 

system, so the buses that get built a year or two from now will 

begin that, assuming that people adopt this idea. 

15 

Chairman JOHNSON. Ms. Cline, the President’s recent proposal 

for reauthorization did not focus funding on the 5311 formula. How 

important is it that rural formula funds grow along with other 

funds? 

Ms. CLINE. As you know, currently with the 5311 dollars that we 

are receiving, we are already stretched to the max. It also means 

that we are placing an undue burden on the repairs and maintenance of outdated stock, stock that is needed to be replaced. I will 

use the example of some of our systems in South Dakota. 

They are unable to raise their wage to a living wage. In fact, 

some are still at a minimum wage starting salaries. Salaries have 

not been increased. I think it goes back to simply the working people. They are not even able to retire. So we need to have that increased investment to sustain and to get us back to, I think healing 

might be a good word, get us back to the point where we can operate and perhaps even expand the services to meet the growing need 

that we have, in particular with health care and chronic illnesses. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Does the typical driver earn a minimum 

wage? 

Ms. CLINE. Oftentimes, the typical driver does not earn minimum 

wage. Well, no, I will take that back. They do get minimum wage, 

but the increases to those, which would normally be on a performance-based annual evaluation, oftentimes those increases are not 

made as they should be because they are trying to keep the costs 

low enough to provide the service. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. I have no additional questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Warren. 

Senator WARREN. The only thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, if 

I have more time, is to go back to this question about funding. We 

have got to have long-term funding, as you say, but we have got 

to have adequate funding. We know why the investment in infrastructure is important. We just need to find the courage around 

here to find the money and put the money into our infrastructure 

investments. So thank you all for being here. Thank you for having 

the hearing. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Melaniphy, your testimony discusses specific examples of how transit agencies in Houston, Los Angeles, Dallas, Jacksonville, for example, would cope with cuts in Federal funding that could result 

in an insolvent transit fund, and they include massive service cuts, 

rolling back paratransit, fare increases. 

Can you discuss what impacts an insolvent trust fund might 

have on the large transit systems in the northeast, for example? 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Yes, Senator Menendez. It is key to the economic viability of this country that we have good public transportation that works. If you look at the northeast, you can see how 

critical it is. When Hurricane Sandy hit and people could not get 

to work, the impact that had on our economy was significant. 

Whether it is in big systems or small systems, it is critical that 

people have access to jobs, access to health care, and access to their 

communities. 

16 

If they cannot get there, they cannot go there. So we must make 

these investments. Otherwise, we are going to see transit agency 

cuts in investment and capital and operations, resulting in loss of 

access to jobs, reduced access to health care, and we are going to 

slow this country’s economic recovery down. It is critical that we 

make these investments. 

Senator MENENDEZ. You know, in our own systems that we operate, mass transit systems have also been the fuel of economic development where we have seen transit systems ultimately be developed, for example, along the Hudson waterfront overlooking midtown Manhattan. The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail system. 

Working years to help develop that ultimately created an entire 

development of the waterfront that increased the rateable base for 

communities, increased jobs for individuals, and ultimately created 

even a greater synergy in trans-Hudson crossings by getting people 

to those trans-Hudson crossings to a mass transit system. 

And so, you know, I sometimes think we look at transit just 

about moving people from one place to the other. There is an economic dimension, there is a quality of life dimension, there is an 

environment dimension in terms of breathing cleaner air. 

And so, when I look at that, I am concerned about an insolvent 

trust fund, and I agree with my colleague, Senator Warren, that, 

you know, the patch-up system that we have of trying to fund this 

process makes for poor public policy, it makes for poor planning decisions, and makes for a poor transit system at the end of the day. 

I also want to ask you about—I referred to it in my opening comments about DOT’s recently released Conditions and Performance 

Report that shows it will take $87 billion to simply bring our transit system to a state of good repair. Now, that does not mean to 

enhance it. It just means to bring it to a state of good repair, and 

that backlog is largely driven by the cost of repairing the tracks, 

the stations, the power systems that make up the backbone of our 

rail transit system. 

Does your organization’s reauthorization proposal address this 

backlog and make sure that we are investing the substantial capital needs? 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Yes, it does, Senator. It is critical to make these 

investments to maintain safe, reliable, dependable service to these 

communities. Safety is paramount to these agencies and we have 

to have a good investment in railbed, in the locomotives and buses, 

in the facilities they service. 

And to tie to the economic comments that you made, we had two 

studies done recently. One was done with the National Association 

of Realtors, one with the U.S. Travel Association. The first study 

found that the value of housing stock along high frequency transit 

corridors was 42 percent more resilient than properties outside 

those corridors because people had access to jobs and they could get 

around their communities without automobiles. 

Our study with the U.S. Travel Association found that downtowns had higher economic viability, higher hotel room rates, if 

they had a connection to their downtown and their airport through 

good transit. These studies show that public transportation is good 

for the economy overall. It is more than just about the trip from 

A to B. 

17 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, it seems to me that if you can have the 

very guts of the system be in a State that can actually make billions of rider trips, particularly in places like the northeast, but 

other places in the country, then you can achieve the type of transit system that creates that economic engine. 

Finally, President Hanley, I appreciate your leadership in your 

organization and your insights. Your testimony notes that between 

1998 and 2009, private contracting, for example, for regular bus 

service doubled, and I know we hear this move toward privatization in an attempt to save money. Yet, privatization often has hidden costs that do not surface when the switch is made. 

You propose a new method of calculating these hidden costs, 

which you call the avoidable cost model. Can you explain how that 

model would work and how it would help transit agencies in making some sound investment decisions? 

Mr. HANLEY. Well, first of all, the best way I can explain what 

has happened in terms of the starvation of our systems, including 

the privatization of them, is to take you into a meeting I was at 

with 25 of our local presidents, brand new presidents who had just 

gotten elected in various parts of the union. 

And one of them stood up in the course of a discussion we had 

and he said, You know—in eastern Dayton, Ohio—and he said, You 

know, I have members who work full-time, they have been there 

for 10 years and they make $12 an hour and they qualify for social 

services. And that got my attention. 

And I said, Well, wait a minute. How could that be? And I said, 

Well, how many people in this room have that same issue where 

you have members who are driving buses, fixing buses, working 

full-time but qualify for social services? Every one of them in the 

room raised their hands except for the Canadians. That is what 

happened. 

And I was stunned, you know, that in our industry—because, you 

know, often in the larger cities we think of transit workers as being 

decently paid. But the fact of the matter is, you know, as has been 

pointed out this morning, most of them are not and most of them 

are out there living on very low wages. 

And the impact and the secondary cost to privatization includes 

stripping Americans of their pensions. I just want to point out that 

one of the largest companies that does this in America is a Frenchbased company named Veolia that is owned by the French Social 

Security system, and they have a policy in the United States that 

no worker who works in their transit systems will have a pension. 

In fact, no workers who work for Veolia in the U.S. have a pension, and that has long-term implications on our people. It has 

long-term implications on our country. And, frankly, you know, we 

have to have priorities. I want you to know first that in 75 percent 

of the cases where the American people, taxpayers, are given the 

opportunity to vote to raise their own taxes for transit in referenda, 

they say yes. Seventy-five percent of these referenda are passing. 

The American people are very willing to raise their taxes to pay 

for a transit system that they know helps the environment and 

helps the economy, as you pointed out, Senator. But the fact of the 

matter is that we have different priorities nationally and we ought 

to rethink them, in addition to which, as Senator Warren said, I 

18 

think we have to be, to paraphrase, less timid about going to the 

American people and talking to them about revenue, because they 

are willing to pay for it. They just need to know what they are paying for. 

And Some of the priorities we have such as our huge war machine, I think really need to be questioned. I know that is not a 

popular thing to talk about or to say, but the fact of the matter is 

that the amount of money we spend all over the world defending 

the American way of life while we diminish the American way of 

life every single day is really—it really raises the question. What 

are we defending? 

If we cannot defend our Social Security system, if we cannot defend our pensions, if we cannot defend these people who work in 

every transit system in America who also qualify for social services, 

what are we defending? I am at a loss. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. 

Unfortunately, we are not able to achieve a quorum this morning 

to adopt the new Subcommittee roster. We will postpone the executive session until after the first vote at 11:20 this morning off the 

floor in the President’s Room. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements and additional material supplied for the 

record follow:] 

19 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. MELANIPHY 

PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

MARCH 6, 2014 

Introduction 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Federal role in addressing the challenges facing the public transportation industry. I am Michael Melaniphy, President 

and Chief Executive Officer of the American Public Transportation Association 

(APTA). Reliable Federal investment—and a steadfast Federal partner—are critically important as public transportation stakeholders work to meet growing and diverse ridership demands, advance safety improvements, and modernize our aging 

systems, all while facing uncertain Federal funding. 

About APTA 

APTA is a nonprofit international association of nearly 1,500 public and private 

member organizations, engaged in the areas of bus, paratransit, light rail, commuter rail, subways, waterborne services, and intercity and high-speed passenger 

rail. This includes: transit systems; commuter, intercity and high-speed rail operators; planning, design, construction, and finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions; transit associations; and State departments of transportation. More than 90 percent of the people using public transportation in the 

U.S. and Canada are served by APTA member systems. 

About Public Transportation 

APTA’s member organizations—both public and private—build, operate, and 

maintain the Nation’s public transportation systems. An essential and expanding 

component of the surface transportation network, public transportation enhances 

connectivity within our communities. But from the largest cities to the smallest 

towns, our systems are showing the strains of chronic underinvestment. Our ability 

to provide safe and reliable service depends on continued Federal support. 

Public transportation ridership has been trending upward for years, and annual 

ridership now exceeds 10.3 billion trips. To serve this growth, the public transportation industry spends more than $38 billion on operating costs and an additional 

$17 billion on capital investments, totaling $55 billion annually. While Federal 

spending represents slightly more than 43 percent of capital expenditures and less 

than 10 percent of operating expenditures, these Federal dollars make an enormous 

difference in our ability to address capital investment needs and operate bus service 

in many communities. 

Federal funding is also critical to closing the well-documented infrastructure investment gap that has left many systems struggling to bring their infrastructure 

into a state of good repair. Transit systems must address this backlog at the same 

time that they are expanding service to meet the needs of riders as diverse as agingin-place seniors, urban millennials, suburban commuters, and residents of small 

towns. U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) just-released Conditions and Performance report documents how the growing backlog of transit system preservation 

needs now totals $85.9 billion. This backlog is up 9.7 percent since 2010 and will 

increase by $2.5 billion annually if funding stalls at current levels. The Department 

estimates that more than $8 billion in annual capital expenditures is needed to pay 

down this backlog over the next 20 years. 

Reliable Federal Support Is Essential 

We are all acutely aware of the impending Highway Trust Fund revenue shortfall. 

We also fully recognize the difficult choices it presents: either identify additional 

revenues, deposit more General Fund revenues into the Trust Fund, or dramatically 

slash transportation investment. In crafting MAP–21 amid similarly sobering revenue projections 2 years ago, Congress rejected the notion of retreating from its 

longstanding role in supporting public transportation and supplemented dedicated 

revenues with a transfer from the General Fund. While this approach worked for 

a 2-year bill like MAP–21, and is certainly preferable to additional short-term extensions, it does not provide the needed predictability of a traditional, multiyear authorization bill backed by dedicated new revenue to support program growth. 

We believe our revenue challenges cannot await a solution in the next authorization bill. The U.S. DOT estimates that reimbursements to transit agencies and State 

highway departments may be delayed or reduced, due to cash flow shortfalls before 

MAP–21 expires at the end of this fiscal year. Later in my testimony, I provide examples of how several individual transit agencies would be impacted by the loss of 

Federal funding. These impacts are as devastating as they are avoidable. We urge 

20 

you to act swiftly to prevent the service cuts, fare increases, and construction project 

suspensions these funding cuts could require. We are encouraged by recent revenue 

proposals from both President Obama and House Ways and Means Committee 

Chairman Camp to ensure the continued health of the Highway Trust Fund and 

sustained Federal investment in transportation, but we are also concerned about the 

ability to advance these proposals in a timely manner. 

A Local, State, and Federal Partnership 

Providing public transportation choices has always been a partnership, involving 

public sector agencies at all levels of government working with nonprofit and private 

sector stakeholders. At the local level, strong public support for transit is reflected 

in a 77 percent success rate over the past 5 years for ballot initiatives seeking funding for public transportation. Americans are also voting with their fare cards: since 

2004, the growth in public transportation use has significantly outpaced the growth 

of both highway miles traveled and the U.S. population as a whole. The planning, 

development, and construction of hundreds of public transportation projects annually is carried out predominantly at the local level by transit agencies—and their 

private sector partners—with deep roots in the communities they serve. In addition 

to improving mobility, transit projects shape land use and development patterns, 

generate jobs, and stimulate productivity gains that benefit the Nation and advance 

national goals. In short, well-designed transit service is a catalyst for economic 

growth. The Federal Government’s longstanding role helps to ensure that these locally derived benefits are fully integrated into the national multimodal transportation network that is so essential to ensuring U.S. competiveness in our global 

economy. 

On a very fundamental level, Federal transportation funding keeps this economic 

engine running, as transit agencies can only plan and advance large, multiyear capital projects when they can be confident the resources will be there when they are 

ready to break ground. While we can all understand the appeal of ‘‘shovel-ready’’ 

projects, the capital projects needed to reduce our large backlog of capital needs are 

the product of comprehensive and fiscally constrained metropolitan and statewide 

planning decisions. In turn, such long-range planning requires steady, long-term investment by all levels of government. 

The returns on this investment have been substantial. From its start in President 

Reagan’s successful ‘‘Nickel for America’’ campaign, dedicated Federal investment in 

public transportation has helped support ridership growth of 30 percent—that is 

nearly 2.5 billion more trips per year today than before this Federal funding commitment. For every dollar we invest in public transportation, we generate about $4 

in economic returns. And $1 billion in Federal transit investment fosters productivity gains that create or sustain 50,000 jobs. As these investment metrics make 

clear, local, and regional transportation improvements yield national benefits. 

APTA’s Recommendations for the Next Authorization Bill 

Communities across the country know that public transportation is a smart investment and have found creative ways to advance projects, but they cannot do it 

alone. Only through sustained, robust investment by all levels of government can 

we maintain what we have built and grow for the future. The more than 10 billion 

trips riders took last year are, in part, the product of decades of Federal support. 

In our authorization proposal, APTA seeks increased Federal funding in a multiyear 

bill; we must keep this momentum going. 

Closing the Infrastructure Investment Gap 

As our impending revenue shortfall makes clear, funding uncertainty delays capital investments and drives up project costs. To ensure the reliable, long-term funding best suited to infrastructure investment, APTA urges Congress to enact a 6- 

year, $100 billion authorization for the Federal transit program that includes robust 

funding to grow the program from $10.7 billion in the current year to $22.2 billion 

in 2020. Revenues into the Highway Trust Fund must increase to support this much 

needed growth. 

Our funding proposal is robust because our needs are real. APTA’s authorization 

recommendations are based on needs identified in eight categories of equipment and 

facilities funded under the current Federal program. They are based on the need 

for 6-year investment from all sources—fares, local, State, and Federal—of $245 billion. APTA’s investment requirements include the cost of bus replacements, demand 

response vehicles, rail vehicles, state-of-good-repair spending, New Starts and core 

capacity projects, and other costs. 

We ask that Congress identify dedicated funding that supplements current HTF 

revenues to ensure the long-term health and growth of Federal public transportation 

and highway programs through and beyond the next long-term authorization bill. 

21 

We support the preservation and growth of revenues that go into the Mass Transit 

Account of the Highway Trust Fund and oppose efforts to devolve existing Federal 

surface transportation programs. 

Our proposal calls for increased funding across the Federal transit programs for 

Capital Investment Grants, State of Good Repair, Bus and Bus Facilities, and formula programs. Recognizing that large but infrequent bus rolling stock and facility 

projects are challenging to address with a limited formula program, APTA recommends restoring a discretionary component to the bus program and boosting 

overall bus program funding to pre-MAP–21 levels in a way that also allows for 

growth in all major programs. 

Leveraging Limited Public Resources 

Transportation funding resources are constrained at all levels of government. 

Transit agencies continue to explore ways to make their limited funds go farther, 

including program reforms, cost-reduction measures, and greater leveraging of public dollars. While grant funding will remain the largest and most crucial source for 

transit capital investments, APTA supports a broad range of funding and finance 

solutions, including a number of tax incentives to encourage greater private investment in infrastructure as well as improvements to make Federal transportation 

credit programs more useful and affordable to smaller project borrowers. 

Nationwide Solutions 

For several programs where transit stakeholders face common challenges nationwide, the Federal Government is best suited to take the lead. These national priorities include the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), Technical Assistance and Standards, and Human Resources and Training. To restore funding predictability to these programs, we recommend they be authorized as a $25 million 

annual set-aside from the urban formula program. We also call for increased flexibility to use formula funds for training. With greater funding certainty, we can 

maximize the returns on this relatively modest investment: practical research results that are ready to deploy, common standards and best practices to improve efficiency at all systems, and workforce training solutions for our increasingly sophisticated industry. 

Assisting communities in the wake of disasters will remain a fundamental role 

of the Federal Government. We support MAP–21’s new Public Transportation Emergency Relief program and urge Congress to fully and promptly fund transit relief 

and reconstruction projects in times of need. 

Costs of Federal Divestment 

At a time when all factors—record-high ridership, the growing backlog of system 

preservation needs, and the broad economic benefits of investment—support far 

greater transit funding, we face the serious threat of cuts to the Federal program, 

as HTF revenues have not kept pace with needs. Transit agencies remain committed 

to providing the highest and safest level of service for their riders and would make 

every effort to mitigate the effects of any Federal funding cuts, but the potential 

for cuts in service, capital maintenance, and capital expansion projects are all too 

real. 

In their capital budgets, agencies would be required to reexamine existing commitments to address state-of-good-repair projects, and instead focus limited resources on maintaining safe service on fewer or less frequent lines. Our smaller systems would likely be the first to feel the impacts, because they often rely on Federal 

funding for a greater portion of basic operating costs than larger agencies with 

broader revenue sources. 

We urge Congress to find a revenue solution in time to prevent the significant 

impacts that a loss of Federal revenues would impose on transit riders and systems 

nationwide. For the Capital Metro system in Austin, Texas, Federal transit funding 

of $28 million represents 14 percent of their operating budget. Without it, Capital 

Metro would have to reduce bus serve by 33 percent, or about 11 million trips annually. 

In Los Angeles, where the Metropolitan Transit Authority operates 6 rail lines 

and 6.8 million revenue hours of bus service, the loss of Federal funds would require 

the MTA to shut down at least one rail line and cut over 1 million revenue hours 

of bus service. These sizable reductions in bus and rail service would be accompanied by dramatic fare increases, doubling the MTA’s base fare from $1.50 to 

$3.00. 

The situation is difficult in Dallas, Texas, as well. The Dallas Area Rapid Transit 

System, or DART, expects it would initially need to draw heavily from its reserve 

fund, as its public and budget hearing requirements would make it almost impossible to make service cuts and fare increases quickly enough to cover for Federal 

22 

cuts potentially just a few months away. DART estimates it would then need to cut 

its 69 million annual fixed route trips by 15 to 20 percent—10 to 13 million trips— 

to absorb the Federal cuts. DART would also be forced to cut paratransit service 

down to the minimum geographic area required by Federal law, eliminating 25,000 

to 50,000 trips from the 700,000 trips it currently provides each year. 

Some agencies have also warned of the snowball effect from losing Federal funds. 

For example, in Jacksonville, Florida, the Jacksonville Transit Authority has successfully leveraged State Development Transportation Credits as a soft match to 

Federal formula funds, saving $3.5 million annually. Without Federal funds, these 

savings disappear. 

Conclusion 

As we face record-high transit ridership on increasingly aging systems, reaffirming the Federal commitment to the millions of Americans who ride public transportation is more essential than ever. APTA’s recommendations for robust Federal 

funding in the next surface transportation authorization bill reflect our belief that 

Federal investment in transportation is an investment in American jobs, American 

communities, and American economic competitiveness. In the most mobile Nation 

in the world, public transportation links people, neighborhoods, and businesses—efficiently, safely, and reliably. Investment in public transportation is much more 

than building physical infrastructure; it is an expression of our collective national 

will to keep moving forward. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARBARA K. CLINE 

PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF

AMERICA, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRARIE HILLS TRANSIT

MARCH 6, 2014 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss reauthorization of the Nation’s surface transportation legislation—Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act, known as MAP–21—and the Federal role and current challenges to 

public transportation. 

I appear before you today as the President of the Community Transportation Association of America’s (CTAA) Board of Directors, a national nonprofit, membership 

association committed to removing barriers to isolation and improving mobility for 

all people. The Association—founded in 1989—provides informational resources, 

technical assistance, training and certification, and many additional resources to 

communities, transportation providers, and other groups to increase mobility and 

improve the quality of community and public transportation. 

I am also the Executive Director of Prairie Hills Transit, located in Spearfish, S.D. 

Prairie Hills Transit serves a 12,000 square mile service area and grew from an operation that started with a single van to one today comprised of 38 vehicles and 50 

employees in six South Dakota counties. I believe I am well-qualified to represent 

the more than 4,000 members of CTAA, as well as other rural transit providers like 

Prairie Hills Transit. 

CTAA’s Core Mobility Values 

Over the past 2 years, CTAA—through extensive outreach and engagement with 

its members and the larger community and public transportation industry across 

the Nation—has identified a series of core mobility values and specific policy recommendations to address the Nation’s mobility future. These values have been consistently codified and strengthened throughout the history of Federal surface transportation legislation—including their current embodiment in MAP–21—and must be 

continually reinforced and expanded upon in any subsequent reauthorization. 

As an association, we believe that mobility is a basic right for all Americans that 

requires Federal investment paired with support from State, county, and local governments, as well as the means to encourage partnerships with the private sector 

and nongovernmental interests. This need is triggered by a rising national population, increasing rural isolation, growing congestion and escalating climate change 

that demands greater community and public transportation options at the same 

time as regulations and policies place barriers to the development of new services 

while also making maintenance of existing systems more challenging. 

This national mobility need requires a strategy that increases investment by responding to growing demand while enhancing productivity in all communities, regardless of location or size. The same level of investment is necessary to support 

riders of community and public transportation, whether they are compelled to travel 

23 

by need—ranging from older Americans and people with disabilities to veterans, 

tribal members and low-income workers—or choice. The investments we make now 

in improved options will return immense value for our entire society—both today 

and in years to come. For it is true that the greatest Nation in the world should 

also be the world’s leader in community and public transportation. 

The effects of Congressional failure to reauthorize the Nation’s surface transportation legislation (MAP–21) would have devastating impacts not only on the members of CTAA, but—more importantly—the communities and passengers they serve. 

The current framework for our Nation’s entire community and public transportation 

network depends on continued, reliable and sufficient Federal investment, which 

has largely been provided through the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust 

Fund. In recent years, routine shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund have left Congressional leaders scrambling to cover the gap in revenue. 

Recent proposals from both the Obama administration and House of Representatives’ Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp offer encouraging signs that 

sufficient sources of revenue may be made available to support a meaningful reauthorization of MAP–21. Congress must act to ensure the Nation’s community and 

public transportation network is able to continue to meet the Nation’s current mobility needs and also respond to emerging needs, as well. 

Policy Recommendations Overview 

While CTAA and its members are open to a wide range of potential revenue 

sources to support the Trust Fund and its Mass Transit Account, make no mistake: 

if Congress fails to act, there will be staggering consequences to the millions of people who depend on community and public transportation every day to access jobs, 

health care, community services, youth education and training, shopping and retail 

outlets, child care, and all the other elements of our communities that sustain our 

quality of life. Most immediately, service will be cut—often dramatically—at a time 

when more Americans than ever rely on these vital mobility options and fares will 

rise, often at the same time. Maintenance will suffer and vehicles will be further 

operated well beyond their recommended lifespan, all of which will impact reliability 

and on-time performance. Passengers will be the hardest hit, arriving to work late 

(or not at all), missing life-sustaining medical appointments and children will wait 

longer to be picked up from child care. In short, riders will pay more for less service 

that is also less reliable. 

In rural communities and small urban areas, the impacts of a lack of continued 

investment in mobility options will be felt even more acutely. These communities 

depend on the support of Federal programs to a greater degree than their counterparts in larger urbanized regions, as State investment is often inconsistent and local 

resources are often strained. There are no rainy day funds for the majority of rural 

and small urban transportation providers. At the same time, people in rural America and smaller cities typically have lower incomes and fewer mobility options at 

their disposal than those living in larger urban communities, magnifying the impacts of service cuts, disruptions and fare increases. The ramifications of a failure 

to reauthorize our Nation’s surface transportation legislation will be disproportionately borne by rural and small urban Americans. 

Moreover, these startling outcomes only presuppose maintenance of currently 

available service, not those of which are also required to meet the steadily climbing 

need for new mobility options. In communities of all sizes and locations, people need 

expanded transit service—new buses, trains and vans; vanpools and bike routes— 

to reach vital destinations in their neighborhoods and regions. MAP–21 represented 

a tepid response to this growing demand. Its successor must do far better in providing mobility operators the resources necessary to best serve their communities. 

As Congress undertakes the process to reauthorize our Nation’s surface transportation legislation, CTAA and its members believe a series of structural foundations 

are necessary to maintain current mobility options and add new ones. 

Overall, the Federal transit program must receive growing investment to sustain 

all current community and public transportation operations—including both their 

capital and operating needs—along with a special focus on the growing demand for 

service in rural and small urban America. To this end, a renewed bus capital program that not only restores investment to pre-MAP–21 levels, but responds to the 

past 2 years of chronic underfunding is essential. No single issue is of greater concern to CTAA and its members. 

Additionally, new legislation must be stable and support long-term funding whereby the most responsive and efficient decisions are made. This requires a reauthorization period of at least five (5) years. The legislation’s timeframe must be paired 

with dedicated, diversified revenue derived from sources beyond current levels of the 

24 

Federal gas tax. Those sources could include increasing and/or indexing the Federal 

gas tax, or implementation of alternative revenue streams. 

CTAA and its members recommend that Congress renew its leadership role in the 

selection process of needed transit projects while also increasing investment levels 

to correspond with the costs of new Federal mandates imposed on transportation 

providers. We also recommend incentives for investment from the private sector and 

increased investment in growing nontraditional responses to mobility demands and 

in meeting the growing mobility needs of America’s most vulnerable populations. 

These, among other more detailed recommendations and priorities for MAP–21 reauthorization from CTAA and its members relating to rural and small urban transit, operating and capital investment, the Section 5310 and coordination/mobility 

management programs, nonprofit transit providers, mobility management, Federal 

regulations and planning can be found in the attachment that follows this statement. 

The Case for Increased Investment 

CTAA and its members are committed to a growth strategy for all forms of surface transportation. Investment in our Nation’s surface transportation infrastructure—particularly public and community transportation in rural and small-urban 

areas—has lagged behind demand. The continuing impact of aging in place, regionalizing rural employment and health care, as well as the bus capital crisis and rising community and passenger demand, make investments in rural and small urban 

transit in MAP–21’s successor critical. 

In the third quarter of 2013, ridership on transit systems in communities with 

populations under 100,000 grew by 2.89 percent compared with the prior year—the 

fastest growing segment of the community and public transportation industry. Ridership in these smaller communities has, in fact, grown every year for the past 5 

years. Employment and medical trips make up the bulk of these growing trips, creating the type of positive outcomes that are the foundations of rural and smallurban transit. 

In rural and small-city community and public transportation, the lack of adequate 

Federal investment manifests itself in aging rolling stock and limited operations. 

Regulatory burdens have more dire consequences and finding local share to match 

Federal investment is more challenging. As stated above, the threat of no MAP–21 

reauthorization and the looming shortfall in the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund has a vastly disproportionate impact on rural and small-urban 

transit operations, which rely more heavily on Federal investment. 

The Looming Bus Capital Crisis 

The single greatest example of the lack of Federal investment in rural and smallurban transit is in the bus capital program. MAP–21 cut by half the traditional Federal program which rural and small-urban transit used exclusively to purchase 

buses. MAP–21’s Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Formula program provides 

only $1.25 million per State for rural bus replacement needs and allocates similarly 

meager amounts through a formula for small-urban areas. The result is a looming 

bus capital crisis. 

For example, in my home State of South Dakota, out of 377 total public and community transportation vehicles in service, 358—more than 95 percent—exceed recommended useful life standards (5 years or more than 150,000 miles). Of those, 187 

vehicles have been operating for more than 10 years! In 2013, 10 systems applied 

to receive investment for 24 new vehicles, but enough funding was awarded to purchase only 8 of those 24 required vehicles. At current levels of investment, it would 

take nearly 20 years to replace all transit vehicles operating past their retirement 

age. For reference, in 2013, those systems carried more than 1.4 million riders and 

traveled more than 4.8 million miles. 

Small urban communities face similar challenges. In West Virginia, two smallurban transit systems are operating fleets where greater than 51 percent of their 

vehicles exceed FTA’s recommended retirement date, while another nine rural operators find that anywhere from 26 to 50 percent of their vehicles are operating beyond recommended retirement. 

And, finally in New Jersey, more than 30 percent of the State’s countywide community transit vehicles—service transporting that State’s most vulnerable population—are at least 7 years old and have operated at least 175,000 miles, a total 

of 313 out of 995 vehicles. 

The lack of adequate bus capital funding has an equally dire consequence to rural 

and small-urban operating investment. As vehicles age, they become significantly 

more expensive to maintain, resulting in rising operating costs. Older buses tend 

to be less fuel efficient than newer ones, also increasing operating expenses. Smaller 

25 

buses—widely in use in rural and small-urban systems—often have recommended 

5-year service lives. The crisis in bus replacement at these agencies is no doubt exacerbated by the fact that these systems purchased many buses through the 2009 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, vehicles which are now reaching the end 

of their useful lives. 

CTAA and its members support both formula and discretionary solutions to this 

bus capital crisis, and hope to work with members of the Senate Banking Committee as well as other members of Congress to find solutions in this reauthorization to ensure rural and small-urban bus operators access to the capital they need 

to continue to serve their communities and passengers. 

Regulatory Relief 

The fact that this crisis coincides with the impending arrival of Federal transit 

safety regulations even further adds to the challenge facing rural and small-urban 

transit operators. These new regulations specifically cover a state of good repair and 

transit asset management. Yet, there is no specific state of good repair capital program for bus operators of any size as there is for traditional rail systems (Section 

5337), nor is there any additional Federal investment to help these smaller systems 

acquire the rolling stock assets needed to ensure system safety. CTAA and its members fully support transit safety efforts and initiatives and continue to cooperate 

with the Federal Transit Administration in its development of these important transit safety regulations. MAP–21 reauthorization is the time to ensure that the needed 

capital investment for rural and small-urban bus operators is available to fully meet 

the forthcoming safety regulations and requirements. 

In fact, CTAA and its members recommend that no new or additional Federal regulations be developed for rural and small-urban transit members without first developing a cost analysis. Further, these operators recommend that adequate Federal 

investment to implement new and additional regulations be part of the next surface 

transportation reauthorization bill. 

Supporting Vulnerable Populations 

In MAP–21, the New Freedom program was combined with the Section 5310 program, along with a subsequent new set of program guidance. CTAA and its members support both increasing Section 5310 investment as well as the ability of States 

to select programs within the Section 5310 program—as was the case prior to MAP– 

21. 

Nonprofit agencies play a vital role in efficiently and cost-effectively serving vulnerable populations in rural and urban areas alike. Therefore, we support adding 

a Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) maintenance goal or percentage setaside in the Section 5307 program, as well as developing language to incentivize and 

maintain the role of nonprofits in local procurements. 

Mobility Management strategies promote transit innovations that meet the growing and changing needs of all sized communities and offer right-sized approaches 

to serving vulnerable populations. CTAA and its members support investing in mobility management strategies to ensure cost-effective and efficient coordination of all 

human service transportation programs with community and public transportation 

and private operators into a full-fledged family of transportation services. 

Population demographics and health care policies and trends are the two most 

prominent factors driving transportation demand in rural and small-urban America. 

Rural communities are increasingly aging, just as the services designed for older 

Americans in rural communities become more dispersed and regional in nature. 

Longer, more expensive trips are the result of these trends. 

Health care trips in smaller communities and larger ones alike, have become inundated by demand for regular transportation to manage chronic conditions like dialysis, cancer treatments, physical/occupational therapies and even behavioral 

health services. The traditional service models deployed by community and public 

transportation systems are being strained by the burgeoning demand for these 

trips—many of which come from outside the Medicaid arena where nonemergency 

transportation is not covered. Further, the expansion of Medicaid program enrollment through the Affordable Care Act will assuredly add to this already overwhelming transportation demand (see our recently released study on nonemergency 

medical transportation included in the attachment section). 

A Time To Act 

It is vital that Congress acts decisively to reauthorize the Nation’s surface transportation legislation by shoring up the Mass Transit Account of the Trust Fund and 

delivering crucial investment to America’s community and public transportation systems and the millions of people they serve every day. 

26 


30614001.eps
27 


30614002.eps
28 


30614003.eps
29 


30614004.eps
30 


30614005.eps
31 


30614006.eps
32 


30614007.eps
33 


30614008.eps
34 


30614009.eps
35 


30614010.eps
36 


30614011.eps
37 


30614012.eps
38 


30614013.eps
39 


30614014.eps
40 


30614015.eps
41 


30614016.eps
42 


30614017.eps
43 


30614018.eps
44 


30614019.eps
45 


30614020.eps
46 


30614021.eps
47 


30614022.eps
48 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LARRY HANLEY 

INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION

MARCH 6, 2014 

Introduction 

The Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), the largest union in the United States 

representing public transit workers (including metropolitan, interstate, and school 

bus drivers; paratransit, light rail, subway, streetcar, and ferry boat operators; mechanics and other maintenance workers; clerks, baggage handlers, municipal employees, and others) is pleased to present testimony on the reauthorization of the 

Federal surface transportation bill and the challenges facing transit riders on behalf 

of our nearly 200,000 members in North America as well as the people who board 

transit vehicles 35 million times daily, relying on safe, reliable public transportation 

to carry on their lives. 

The Federal transit program turns 50 years old in 2014. Created by Congress in 

an effort to save our cities’ crumbling network of private bus operations at a time 

when our Nation was coming apart at the seams due to the inequities in our society, 

the program has now come full circle. 

By the late 1960s, the expansion of highways and explosion in private automobile 

ownership nearly made buses obsolete, but just 10 years later, people were flocking 

back to transit to beat soaring fuel prices during the energy crisis. 

Then in the 1980s, Americans went back to driving and started buying smaller 

fuel efficient cars to avoid getting stung at the pump again. Transit privatization 

schemes were initiated all across the Nation, and most failed. By the late 1990s, 

there was a transit renaissance launched by the passage of TEA–21, unprecedented 

bipartisan legislation which provided transit systems with guaranteed sizeable funding increases well into the new century. Ridership skyrocketed, as people all across 

the Nation started choosing transit like never before. 

However, since 2005 the Federal transit program, and as a result the American 

People, have been standing in place. Funding has been basically flat over the course 

of the past two reauthorization bills, budget guarantees have been repealed, and 

transit systems are running on fumes. Without a new revenue source for the Highway Trust Fund, Congress has been forced to bail out the program on several occasions in recent years, and the clock is ticking on the next shortfall. 

The 2008 fuel crisis pushed people out of their cars and into buses and trains once 

again, but this time the agencies could not handle the load, as they too were paralyzed by the skyrocketing price of gas. This and the plummeting economy resulted 

in unprecedented fare hikes, service cuts, outright route eliminations, and a new 

generation of privateers offering empty promises of better service at lower cost. 

Transit-dependent people lost their ride and many lost their livelihoods as a result. 

Today, as was the case in 1964, inequities in our society still exist, especially in 

the area of transportation. Service for the elderly and people with disabilities is substandard and in many places disgraceful. Intercity bus drivers are falling asleep at 

the wheel because they don’t have the critical protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and innocent people looking for an inexpensive ride to grandma’s 

house are dying as a result. Transit operators are being assaulted at a record pace, 

putting passengers, automobile drivers, pedestrians and bikers in harm’s way like 

never before. Even the tax code has a bias for people who use transit, as they receive far less monthly tax free benefits than those who drive to work. 

But now, rather than fleeing our cities like in the 1960s, people are moving back 

in record numbers, and transit systems are struggling to put service on the streets 

to meet higher demand. Outsourcing is becoming the norm and passengers are paying more and getting far less. America is desperately trying to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, but not enough transit is in place to make a true impact in this 

fight. 

Executive Summary 

American cities are busting at the seams, and it is projected that more and more 

people will move to our urban centers within the next three decades. Without better 

public transportation, our Nation faces total gridlock. Yet, major inequalities still 

exist in Federal transportation law which favor travel by private automobile. 

The typical metropolitan resident can reach only about 30 percent of jobs in their 

area via transit within 90 minutes. Transit for most people is simply not convenient 

or practical, so they find transportation alternatives that pollute our air and sustain 

our dependence on foreign oil. Others who cannot afford a car are likely among the 

more than 7 percent of Americans who remain unemployed, because they cannot get 

to work. 

49 

1 ‘‘More Americans Move to Cities in Past Decade-Census’’. Lisa Lambert, Reuters, March 26, 

2012. 2Outlook—Gross Metropolitan Product, and Critical Role of Transportation Infrastructure. 

Prepared for the United States Conference of Mayors and the Council on Metro Economies and 

the New American City by Global Insight, 2012. 3 2012 Urban Mobility Report, Texas A&M Transportation Institute. 

This proposal makes the case for significant increases in Federal transit funding 

to meet our mobility needs, now and into the future. ATU calls for doubling the size 

of the Federal transit program, and we identify sound, progressive revenue streams 

to pay for the program out of the dwindling Highway Trust Fund. Transit cuts keep 

coming at systems all across the Nation. The proposal calls for local control of transit funds so that transit systems can avoid having to keep brand new buses in the 

garage while slashing service at the same time. 

The centerpiece of the proposal is a major addition to the Federal transit program 

to address the poor quality of service provided to people with special needs. More 

than 20 years after the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), demand response service has been overrun with problems that seriously impact the 

quality of life for millions of Americans. The ATU’s proposed TREAD program would 

provide $1 billion annually to address this mobility crisis. 

Outsourcing of fixed route bus service has more than doubled in recent years. The 

result has been deteriorating service and more fare hikes. Lower wages and reduced 

benefits paid by privateers are leading to dissatisfied workers. This culminates in 

major turnover issues, resulting in training problems, safety issues, etc. This proposal calls for the rejection of Federal policy that provides an advantage for the private sector at the local level. 

Passenger safety has become a huge issue in fixed route transit, as we have seen 

a dramatic increase in the level and intensity of senseless attacks on defenseless 

operators, putting everyone on the bus at risk. In addition, in too many cities, tight, 

computer-generated schedules and increased traffic congestion have created shifts in 

which no time is available to use the restroom, leading to highly distracted operators. Both of these issues raise major concerns, and ATU proposes commonsense solutions to enhance operator and passenger safety. 

Safety is also an issue on intercity buses, which are crashing at an alarming rate 

in recent years as the culture of the industry has changed dramatically. Bus drivers 

are falling asleep at the wheel because they are working grueling hours at abysmally low wages. And since intercity bus drivers are exempt from the Fair Labor 

Standards Act’s (FLSA) overtime provisions, many drivers are forced to work second 

jobs during their so-called ‘‘rest period’’ in order to make ends meet. This proposal 

makes the case to lift the FLSA exemption. 

Finally, the public transportation industry, like many service-based sectors in the 

United States, will be faced with major workforce challenges in the near future. A 

large percentage of the transit workforce will be retiring within the next few years. 

This proposal calls for Federal funding to provide training to workers so that they 

can perform their jobs adequately, move up the career ladder, and help the Nation’s 

transit agencies operate at maximum efficiency. 

Wanted: America’s Urban Agenda 

America in 30 years: Gridlocked? 

More Americans are living in cities now than a decade ago, according to U.S. Census data. In 2010, a total of 80.7 percent of Americans lived in urban areas. The 

population of urban areas grew by more than 12 percent, much faster than the 

country’s growth rate of 9.7 percent from 2000 to 2010. 1

This trend is expected to continue. The percentage of Americans living in metropolitan areas is set to grow by roughly a third over the next three decades. 2 Already 

today, roughly four-fifths of the country lives in large urban areas, and cities like 

Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and Tampa—none of which have expansive transit systems—will likely see some of the fastest growth in years to come. Within the next 

30 years, the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale area is projected to grow by more than 88 

percent, swelling to more than 8 million people, the equivalent of New York City 

today. How in the world are the American people—a huge percentage of whom will 

be senior citizens by 2044—going to navigate around our urban centers without having access to safe, affordable, convenient, and reliable public transit? 

Today, we are already wasting 2.9 billion gallons of fuel—enough to fill the New 

Orleans Superdome four times—at a financial cost of $121 billion per year ($818 per 

commuter) just sitting in traffic. 3 If trends are not dramatically reversed, our econVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Dec 19, 2014 Jkt 046629 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 L:\HEARINGS 2014\03-06 Z DISTILL\30614.TXT JASON
50 

4 ‘‘America’s Oil Boom Won’t Make It Energy-Independent From Middle East Madness’’. 

Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, September 5, 2013. 5 ‘‘Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America’’. Brookings Institution, 

2011. 6 ‘‘As Youth Driver Licensing Dips Again, A Focus on the Millennials’’. Tony Dutzik, 

www.DCStreetsblog.org, March 15, 2013. 

omy will be paralyzed in 30 years because people will not be able to get to work 

or spend their money at local businesses. 

Crossroads 

The U.S. is in the midst of a boom in domestic oil production, thanks largely to 

new unconventional reserves in North Dakota and Texas. Lawmakers may assume 

that we are well on our way to plummeting fuel prices and energy independence. 

Some have actually called for the end of Federal funding for transit, putting the responsibility in the States’ hands. 

This would be a mammoth mistake. Less dependent on foreign oil does not make 

us independent. If something happens to disrupt production in a major oil-exporting 

Nation, the price would skyrocket and all the shale oil in North Dakota wouldn’t 

be enough to shield American drivers from even more expensive gas. While U.S. oil 

production has increased by a little more than 2 million barrels (a 44 percent increase) since 2007, those additional barrels represent just 2 percent of the 90 million 

barrels a day the world is consuming now. No wonder it’s had little impact on the 

price at the pump. 4

The only way to truly become energy-independent is to use less oil, and public 

transportation of course plays an important role in reducing the Nation’s energy use 

and greenhouse gas emissions. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), on a passenger mile basis, buses use only 84 percent as much fuel 

as automobiles, vans, and sports utility vehicles, and most rail transit vehicles and 

trolley buses emit little or no pollution since they are electrically propelled. Seeking 

relief from high fuel prices, people are turning to public transportation in record 

numbers: transit ridership in the U.S. is now at its highest level in five decades, 

at more than 10 billion annual trips. 

Where Is Our Urban Agenda? 

Despite the obvious environmental and economic benefits of public transportation, 

more than 95 percent of Americans still commute to work in private automobiles. 

Most people believe that they can get to work faster and more efficiently via car, 

and unfortunately they are correct. Transit for most people is simply not convenient 

or practical, so they find transportation alternatives that pollute our air and sustain 

our dependence on foreign oil. Others who cannot afford a car may be one of the 

millions of Americans collecting unemployment checks because they simply can’t get 

to work. 

According to a recent groundbreaking study, the typical metropolitan resident can 

reach only about 30 percent of jobs in their area via transit within an hour and a 

half. The percentage is even lower for workers in growing low-income suburban communities. 5

Yet, transit continues to be funded at only a fraction of the highway program, and 

overall transportation investment is far short of demand. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) estimates that the Nation’s transit systems collectively have a 

state of good repair backlog that exceeds $78 billion. APTA’s reauthorization proposal calls for a 13 percent annual increase for transit. The Obama administration 

proposed to double the size of the transit program in a recent budget submission. 

The bottom line is that transit needs to grow substantially if we are ever going to 

get people out of their cars, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and slow down 

climate change. 

We will never move away from our auto-dependent society or get anywhere close 

to the level of transit ridership seen in Europe if we do not heavily invest in transit, 

target funds wisely, and allow systems to use those funds as they see fit. 

Reasons for Optimism 

Trends are on our side. Americans have demonstrated that they are willing to 

raise their own taxes to pay for expanded green mobility options. Since 2000, more 

than 70 percent of public transportation measures on State and local ballots have 

passed. In addition, recent studies have shown that millennials favor moving back 

to cities and prefer using public transportation in lieu of private automobiles. In 

2011, the percentage of 16-to-24 year olds with driver’s licenses dipped to a new low. 

Just over two-thirds of these young Americans (67 percent) were licensed to drive 

in 2011, the lowest percentage since at least 1963. 6

51 

7 ‘‘Impacts of the Recession on Public Transportation Agencies’’. Survey Results, March 2010. 

APTA. 

Innovative Financing and Public Private Partnerships: Proceed With Caution 

Meeting our responsibilities to provide infrastructure for our urban centers cannot 

be done strictly through Federal funding. The private sector has always played a 

robust role in the building of our transportation systems, and will continue to do 

so. The designing and building of long-term transportation projects may be appropriate for innovative financing, and several bills expanding so-called public-private 

partnership (PPPs) have already been introduced during the 113th Congress. 

The guaranteed and increased funding levels in place under TEA–21 provided economic security that financial markets demand, spurring massive investment from 

the private sector. However, SAFETEA–LU and MAP–21 moved away from guaranteed funding, leading innovative finance programs into new directions which are 

dangerous for transportation policy. 

For example, several of the new innovative finance proposals introduced in this 

Congress would authorize transit projects to be funded outside of FTA’s jurisdiction, 

raising the real prospect of fractured transportation systems which do not involve 

critical planning guidelines—Long-Range Transportation Plans and short-term 

Transportation Improvement Programs—and environmental reviews. 

In addition, these same bills have not included traditional labor protections. 

Transportation Labor supports new innovative finance mechanisms for transportation projects, such as tax credits and State and National Infrastructure Banks 

flowing through FTA on the condition that both the direct recipients of Federal dollars through the banks and tax credits and projects funded through subsequent generation banks and tax credit funding comply with basic Federal labor standards, including 49 U.S.C. 5333(b)—formerly Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act—and 

Davis-Bacon, providing economic and job security. 

ATU Supports: 

• Funding public transportation at $119 billion over the next 6 years, more than 

doubling the commitment to transit in SAFETEA–LU, as called for in President 

Obama’s surface transportation reauthorization proposal released prior to 

MAP–21 (FY2012 Budget). 

Funding Sources: 

Gas Tax 

• H.R. 3636, the Update, Promote, and Develop America’s Transportation Essentials Act of 2013, which would phase in a 15 cent/gallon tax increase over the 

next 3 years on gasoline and diesel. 

Robin Hood Tax 

• H.R. 1579, the Inclusive Prosperity Act to impose a tax on certain financial 

transactions to strengthen our financial security, reduce market volatility, expand opportunity, and stop shrinking the middle class. This proposal, also 

known as the ‘‘Robin Hood Tax’’, could generate billions of dollars for transportation infrastructure. 

National Infrastructure Bank 

• H.R. 2553, the National Infrastructure Development Bank Act, to responsibly 

create and fund a public bank to leverage public and private dollars for meritorious infrastructure projects of national or regional significance. 

No End in Sight for Transit Cuts 

Due to shortages in State and local revenues, U.S. public transit systems carried 

out some of the steepest fare increases and deepest service cuts in history during 

the first 2 years of the recession. Since the beginning of 2009, approximately 85 percent of public transit systems have raised fares or cut service, and thousands of 

workers in the transit industry—a significant percentage of a ‘‘green’’ workforce— 

have been laid off. Fifty-six percent of transit systems cut rush hour service, 62 percent slashed off-peak service, and 40 percent reported reductions in geographic coverage. 7

Policy makers who believe that the economy is back on track and the transit crisis 

is over should travel to Gettysburg, PA. Ironically, the site of one of the best-known 

and important Presidential speeches in American history on the issue of human 

equality lost Freedom Transit on December 30, 2013. The transit company, operated 

by Rabbittransit, eliminated fixed-route service on its Blue, Gray, and Lincoln lines 

and Freedom Transit’s express shuttle to Harrisburg will be terminated June 30, 

52 

8 ‘‘Freedom Transit Cuts Service’’. The Evening Sun (Hanover, Pennsylvania), December 5, 

2013. 9 ‘‘Transit Fares Irk Seniors, Youths’’. Lowell Sun (Massachusetts), November 2, 2013. 10 ‘‘County’s Neediest Hit Hard by Bus Fare Hikes; County Commissioners Vote Unanimously 

for First Increase Since 2008’’. Palm Beach Post (Florida), August 14, 2013. 11 APTA 

2014. Without local matching funds, local officials made the difficult choice to cut 

off critical service in this rural area. 8

Facing a $75 million funding shortfall, King County Metro in Washington is dealing with a mobility crisis. If a stable funding source is not identified in the near 

future, 74 of Metro’s 214 routes will be eliminated, while 107 routes would be reduced or revised. According to Metro in Seattle, if the funding is not found and the 

agency is forced to cut the services, it would be the loss of an unprecedented 14 million rides annually, and would revert Metro’s service to levels not seen since 1997. 

Seniors and adolescents in Boston, MA, stung by the staggering 23 percent fare 

increases in 2012 are speaking out and urging lawmakers to roll them back, as transit-dependent passengers with fixed income have been left to choose between travel 

and other necessities. The fare hikes increased rates disproportionately for seniors. 

Should elderly people who have lived through the Great Depression of the 1930s 

and World War II be required to spend precious moments during their final years 

on Earth publicly begging lawmakers to keep transit fares to a reasonable level? 

That is how 89-year old Ann Stewart, the former president of the Massachusetts 

Senior Action Council, spends her time. ‘‘It is not affordable for those who need it 

now and those of us who might need it tomorrow,’’ she said at a recent public hearing. 9

Where Is Our Agenda To Help the Poor? 

From coast to coast, it is our Nation’s poorest residents that continue to bear the 

brunt of transit service cuts and fare increases. In Palm Beach County, FL, over 

bitter objections from riders, officials voted unanimously in August of 2013 to increase fares—with the largest percentage increase going to the poorest riders. Fares 

were last raised as recently as 2008, and those who buy monthly passes will see 

the largest percentage increase. For a rider whose income is 75 percent of the Federal poverty level—someone who makes about $8,250 a year—the monthly pass increased by 50 percent, from $10 to $15 a month. By comparison, the fare for most 

riders is increasing by 33 percent. 10

Transit Benefits Should Be Made Permanent 

As if cutting routes was not enough, the Federal Government added insult to injury on January 1, 2014, and cut tax-free transit benefits, reaching into the pockets 

of transit riders and pulling out a wad of cash as a penalty for riding the bus or 

train. 

The monthly cap on Federal tax-free transit benefits, which allows riders to set 

aside wages in an account used exclusively for paying public transportation costs, 

was reduced from $245 to $130. At the same time, a similar credit allowed motorists 

for parking will increase to $250 per month. We are encouraging people to drive to 

work and increasing transit riders’ costs by as much as $1,380 per year. 11

The average American family devotes nearly 20 percent of its income to transportation—second only to housing. A two-person household can achieve an average annual savings of more than $9,700 by living with one less car and taking public 

transportation instead of driving. A permanent increase in this benefit means transit commuters have one less expense to worry about, and in today’s economy, every 

dollar counts. 

ATU Supports: 

• Authorizing transit systems to use their Federal funding for operating assistance when needed to avoid service cuts, route eliminations, or fare increases. 

• Allowing fuel to be classified as a capital expense. 

• Eliminating the Federal tax code’s bias against people taking public transportation through inclusion of H.R. 2288, the Commuter Parity Act of 2013, to establish permanent tax credit parity between the parking and transit portions 

of the transportation fringe benefit. 

Paratransit: Fulfill the Promise of ADA 

Nearly a quarter century after the passage of the historic Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, transportation for people with major mobility issues remains a national disgrace. A U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics study found 

53 

12 ‘‘Advocating For Transportation Systems Change; The State Independent Living Council 

and Independent Living Centers Push for Changes in Transportation’’. PR Newswire, April 15, 

2013. 13 ‘‘Riders’ Guide to Public Transit for People With Disabilities. Meeting the Challenge Inc. 

and FTA’’, CO268001 (Cooperative Agreement). 14Guest Column (submitted by the Innovation in Infrastructure Program at the Urban Institute); ‘‘Roadblocks Ahead for Senior Mobility’’. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 18, 2013. 15 ‘‘ADA Paratransit Services; Demand Has Increased, But Little Is Known About Compliance’’. Government Accountability Office, 2012. 16 ‘‘Cities’ Paratransit Services Face Cutbacks, Fare Increases’’. USA Today, April 9, 2009. 17 ‘‘Public Transit: Transit Agencies’ Use of Contracting To Provide Service’’. Government Accountability Office, September 2013. 

that 6 million people living with disabilities had difficulties accessing needed transportation. 12

The ADA provided that it shall be considered discrimination for a public entity 

that operates a fixed-route transit system to fail to offer on-demand service, also 

known as paratransit or dial-a-ride, to people of any age with serious disabilities 

that is comparable to services provided to those without disabilities. Such service 

must be comparable and parallel to the fixed route service—offered on the same 

days and same times fixed route service is offered. In addition, at a minimum, paratransit must serve all areas within a corridor which extends 3⁄4 of a mile on each 

side of each route served by the fixed route system. 13 The idea of the bill was to 

remove the barriers that were preventing people with disabilities from living every 

aspect of their lives to the fullest extent. 

Unfortunately, despite the ADA, transportation options are still extremely limited 

for elderly and disabled Americans, leading to isolation and diminished health. 

People With Disabilities: Deserving of Safe, Affordable, Dependable Transportation 

ADA paratransit services are incredibly expensive to operate. The U.S. spent over 

$3.6 billion in 2011 to provide ADA paratransit services, an almost 200 percent increase from 1999, even though ridership only went up 49 percent. An average ADA 

one-way paratransit trip cost $34.59 in 2011, up from $16.09 in 1999 (not adjusted 

for inflation). 14 The average cost of providing an ADA paratransit trip is an estimated three-and-a-half times more expensive than the average cost of a fixed-route 

trip.’’ 15 Paratransit ridership makes up 2 percent of public transit ridership nationwide but 13 percent of operating costs. 16

With costs soaring and nowhere to turn, transit systems have over the years 

outsourced more and more paratransit work. Today, nearly 80 percent of the Nation’s paratransit service is contracted out by U.S. transit systems to private, usually foreign transit companies which too often bid too low to realistically meet the 

standards set forth in the request for proposal from the transit system in order to 

secure the service. In addition to cost, transit systems readily admit that contracting 

ADA paratransit allows agencies to remove themselves from the day-to-day operations and reduces the risk and liability associated with operational responsibility. 17

Is that consistent with the legislative intent and true spirit of the ADA? 

Service Quality Issues 

Demand response service nationwide has been overrun with problems that seriously impact the quality of life for millions of Americans. Horror stories are common 

for frail, elderly, blind, paraplegic, and other disabled citizens, including veterans. 

Quality of service issues in paratransit are mind numbing, and anyone who is related to a senior citizen, wounded veteran, or other person with disabilities knows 

this all too well. 

On-time performance is a major problem, caused by poor planning and unrealistic 

schedules. Trips are often scheduled too close together, and drivers say their schedules are impossible to keep. Pick up times are too often far ahead of the needed arrival time at the destination, leaving customers waiting outside and unprotected in 

varying types of weather conditions. In many locations, when customers are delivered late to their destination, no accommodation is made to pick them up at a later 

time. 

Many customers report that reservation agents do not ensure that their address 

is correct, resulting in the driver going to the wrong address and documenting the 

customer as a ‘‘no-show.’’ Moreover, persons with disabilities nationwide complain 

that the reservation process takes too long. Some disabled riders say the problem 

is not just on-time pickups—it is being stuck in a paratransit van for hours while 

other riders are picked up and dropped off. In some cases, people with very special 

needs are literally being held hostage for hours. 

54 

18 ‘‘Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations’’. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report #132, 2010. 19 ‘‘The Next Four Decades: The Older Population in the United States: 2010 to 2050 Population Estimates and Projections’’, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. 20 ‘‘Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options’’. Linda Bailey, Surface Transportation Policy 

Project, 2004. 

And while transit agencies make every effort to push elderly and disabled persons 

onto fixed route buses, unfortunately individuals often encounter poor maintenance 

of the accessibility equipment and inadequate wheelchair securements. 

Turnover = Poor Service Quality 

The most important reason for the poor quality of service in paratransit is turnover, and this is of course tied directly to wages and benefits. According to the most 

recent national study, the average starting wage for ADA paratransit vehicle operators employed by private contractors ranges from $7 to just over $14.00 per hour 

and averaged $10.47. Vehicle operators employed by public agencies that provide 

services in-house are paid from $9.50 to $15.77, with the average starting wage 

being $12.06. Only 75 percent of private contractors offer individual health care coverage to full-time operators, and only 68 percent provide family coverage. Only 19 

percent of companies offer health benefits to part-time vehicle operators. On average, full-time vehicle operators are required to pay 33 percent of individual coverage 

and 50 percent of family coverage, a cost that is often out-of-reach given the hourly 

wages. 

A 2008 FTA compliance review conducted of the Metropolitan Transit System 

(MTS) in San Diego indicated an 82 percent annual turnover rate among ADA paratransit vehicle operators. The report states that ‘‘This high turnover rate results in 

a high percentage of relatively inexperienced operators and may affect service efficiency and service quality.’’ An FTA review of Pierce Transit in Lakewood, Washington, in 2007 indicated that the major private contractor, which provided about 

74 percent of the service, was experiencing an 80 percent turnover rate among operators. Meanwhile, the portion of Pierce Transit’s in-house paratransit service reported almost no vehicle operator turnover—their average public sector ADA paratransit operator has an average tenure of 14 years. 

The same study found a statistically significant relationship between compensation and turnover. The level of starting wages was shown to account for 21 percent 

of the turnover reported, and turnover can be lowered by 3.5 percent to 5.1 percent 

for every $1 increase in starting wage. 18

Problems Will Only Grow 

It is expected that the proportion of older Americans to the total population will 

be much higher in the future years. According to the U.S. Census ‘‘in 2050, the 

number of Americans aged 65 and older is projected to be 88.5 million, more than 

double the approximate population of 40.2 million in 2010’’. 19 Most of the increase 

is linked with the baby boomers that entered into this category in 2011. This growth 

will have huge implications on public transit since one in five Americans 65 and 

older do not drive. 20

Summary—A Mobility Nightmare for People With Special Needs 

Paratransit customers living on fixed income cannot afford to pay higher fares. 

Transit systems which are making tough decisions every day, balancing the needs 

of fixed route services, cannot afford the huge costs associated with transit for people with special needs, so they outsource the work and hope for the best. Private 

contractors making lofty promises that cannot possibly be honored are locking cities 

into multiyear contracts and failing miserably, providing awful service that is not 

fit for anyone, especially frail and vulnerable people. Contractors deliberately use 

small vans and taxi services on a regular basis, raising serious health and safety 

issues as drug and alcohol testing requirements and other regulations applicable to 

fixed route and paratransit operators in larger vehicles do not apply. 

If a person with special needs lives within 3⁄4 of a mile of a bus line, they can 

get access to this substandard service. If not, no legal obligation exists to serve their 

basic mobility needs, and transit systems are walking away from them due to financial constraints. 

People with disabilities, including wounded veterans and seniors, deserve transit 

that is respectful, equitable, accessible, and dependable. 

Transit Respectful Equitable Accessible Dependable (TREAD). 

ATU proposes a new funding stream known as the TREAD Program. 

55 

TREAD Overview 

• Funding: ADA has been an unfunded mandate since 1990. It is time for a separate, substantial funding stream dedicated toward the provision of first class 

paratransit service. As noted above, we spend nearly $4 billion annually to provide ADA paratransit services, but FTA is authorized only to grant a few hundred million per year (Section 5310)—and most transit systems see little if any 

of this money. TREAD should be funded at a minimum of $1 billion annually 

on a formula basis, and increase substantially as our population ages. Eligible 

grant recipients should include transit systems of all sizes, and such recipients 

should be authorized to use such funds as they see fit to meet the needs of people with special needs—capital, operations, or maintenance. Operating assistance requirements applicable to fixed route should not apply. A person with disabilities living in a rural area has the same special needs as a person residing 

in the big city. 

• Training: Transit agencies report that a major reason for contracting is that 

ADA paratransit requires specialized training and equipment that can be difficult to provide because agencies may lack staff, expertise, or resources needed 

to train workers. TREAD would authorize funding for these activities. 

• Delaying Service Cuts: The astounding service cuts and outright elimination of 

routes on fixed routes has wreaked havoc for people with disabilities, especially 

those using paratransit within 3⁄4 of a mile of the slashed routes. Under the 

TREAD program, if a transit system cuts a fixed route bus line, they would not 

be authorized to cut paratransit service to any person in that service area for 

a period of at least 2 years. People with special needs and their families need 

more time to adjust to these changes. 

• Coordinating: TREAD should not in any way impact the current Section 5310 

program which allows private nonprofit groups to provide critical mobility options in rural areas. TREAD and 5310 should in fact be integrated to the greatest extent possible with the Federal Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM), which coordinates over 60 Federal programs that fund services for 

transportation-challenged populations. 

• Closing the Van Safety Gap: Commercial drivers’ license requirements—including drug and alcohol testing—and physical exam mandates should be mandated 

for all paratransit van operators, regardless of vehicle size. Persons with disabilities traveling in vans with less than 9–15 passengers have the same special 

needs as those in larger vehicles. 

ATU Supports: 

• Creation of the TREAD Program to finally provide people with special needs 

riding paratransit the same mobility options as people who rely on fixed route 

public transportation services. 

• Meeting our commitments to veterans and military families by providing access 

to transportation options that facilitate community integration and participation. 

Safety and Security 

An Epidemic of Assaults on Operators 

Passengers lucky enough to still have some level of fixed route service have been 

forced to dig deeper into their own pockets. These fare hikes—which have occurred 

almost everywhere—are essentially tax increases, and of course, the individuals responsible for the collection of these taxes are bus operators, the members of our 

union who serve as the face of hundreds of the transit systems across the Nation. 

People don’t like paying more for inferior service, so quite often they take out their 

frustrations on the drivers. In the past 5 years, we have seen a dramatic increase 

in the level and intensity of senseless attacks on defenseless operators. Drivers have 

been punched, slapped, stabbed, shot, and have had bodily fluids thrown upon them. 

And they are confronting all of this while trying to safely steer their vehicles 

through traffic, protecting the lives of passengers, pedestrians, and other drivers 

who are seriously distracted by today’s hand-held gadgets. 

Transit workers are at higher risk for violence than are workers in many other 

occupations. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health, there is an increased risk of workplace violence 

for workers who have direct contact with the public, have mobile workplaces or deVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Dec 19, 2014 Jkt 046629 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 L:\HEARINGS 2014\03-06 Z DISTILL\30614.TXT JASON
56 

21 ‘‘Practices To Protect Bus Operators From Passenger Assault’’. TCRP Synthesis #93, 2011. 22TCRP Synthesis Report #93. 23 ‘‘The Effect of Acute Increase in Urge To Void on Cognitive Function in Healthy Adults’’, 

Neurourology and Urodynamics 30:183–187 (2011). 24 ‘‘Doing More With Less: Competitive Contracting Changes in SAFETEA–LU Reauthorization’’. The Affordable Commuting Coalition. 

liver services, work in community settings, deliver passengers, handle money, and 

work in small numbers. 21

When a passenger assaults a bus operator while he or she is driving the vehicle, 

transit riders, auto drivers, and pedestrians are placed at risk. In California, an 

Omnitrans bus operator was stabbed in 2010 while operating a bus. After he was 

attacked, the bus veered off the road and crashed into a tree. The operator, a 15- 

year veteran, died, leaving behind a wife and eight children. 22

Lack of Restroom Breaks a Huge Health and Safety Issue 

In addition, in too many cities, tight computer-generated schedules and increased 

traffic congestion have created shifts in which no time is available to use the restroom. As a result, bus operators restrict their fluid intake, starving internal organs, 

leading to a whole host of health problems, including urinary tract infections, kidney problems, etc. Though they do not like to talk about it publicly, drivers who do 

not resort to relieving themselves in cups wind up staining driver seats through involuntary urination. Women, who make up a growing segment of our membership, 

cannot simply urinate out the back doors of the bus like their male counterparts 

are forced to do. Paratransit operators often have no designated breaks whatsoever 

because dispatch tends to build those routes while the vehicles are still on the road, 

and the drivers of course may not leave elderly and disabled passengers alone. 

Furthermore, while the focus of policy makers at all levels of government in recent years has been on distracted driving caused by cell phone use or driving while 

impaired, recent studies indicate that driving while holding it in (is just as dangerous. The discomfort and stress of holding it in make it more difficult to operate 

a vehicle safely and effectively. Operators report being distracted and driving faster 

when under this kind of pressure. One laboratory study found that not responding 

to an extreme urge to urinate affected attention and thinking. The effect was equal 

to that of staying awake for 24 hours or having a blood alcohol level (BAC) of 0.05 

percent. For comparison, a commercial driver would be disqualified at a BAC of 0.04 

percent. 23

A few years ago, a TriMet (Portland, OR) bus operator was in a hurry to take 

a restroom break when she was crushed to death by her own bus. She was 6 minutes late when she pulled her bus into a transit center, left the vehicle running in 

forward gear and failed to properly set the parking brake. The 27-year veteran hurriedly walked in front of the bus, reached in the driver’s window to pull a lever to 

close the doors, and then walked back across the front of the bus on her way to the 

restroom. When she closed the door, the brakes were released after a one-and-a-halfsecond delay, and the bus struck her, pinned her to a bus stop sign and killed her 

instantly. 

The health and safety issues confronting our members and the riding public due 

to the lack of clear and sensible policies at transit systems across the U.S. are staggering. 

ATU Supports: 

• Requiring newly manufactured vehicles to include workstation changes to protect operators. While airplane cockpits and train locomotives are completely off 

limits to passengers, transit buses are wide open. Driver shields, drivers’ side 

doors and other ideas must be on the table, as should retrofitting of existing 

vehicles. Research is now ongoing to determine the best options. 

• Mandating that transit agency (bus and rail) comprehensive safety plans address assault and restroom break matters. No safety plan should be eligible for 

FTA certification unless it receives the official approval of represented employees of the grantee. Such a process will ensure a credible and enforceable plan 

that addresses the real safety concerns of all involved. 

Transit Privatization: Riders First 

If it is not our members being punched in the gut by the funding shortages, it 

is the passengers, who have been hit with an onslaught of failed transit privatization experiments around every corner. Between 1998 and 2009, privately contracted 

service for fixed route bus service more than doubled. 24 The poor economy is a 

breeding ground for the profit-seeking transit contractors to make their case to local 

officials that they can somehow deliver better service at lower cost. Despite this, 

57 

25 ‘‘Transit and Contracts: What’s Best for Drivers?’’ Access, Songju Kim and Martin Wachs, 

2006. 26 ‘‘Public Transit: Transit Agencies’ Use of Contracting To Provide Service’’. Government Accountability Office, September 2013. 27 Elliott Sclar, Director of the Center for Sustainable Urban Development and Professor of 

Urban Planning and International Affairs, Columbia University. 

MAP–21 included language that mandated a GAO study to identify impediments to 

outsourcing. Other provisions were also included to provide private sector transit operators—largely foreign corporations—with an unfair advantage. 

The result has been deteriorating service, more fare hikes, and serious safety 

issues. When transit systems privatize operations, they lose control of their ability 

to respond to riders’ concerns about quality of service issues, even as foreign companies drive service into the ground. Lower wages and reduced benefits are the open 

game plan of private transit providers, leading to dissatisfied workers. This culminates in major turnover issues, resulting in training problems, safety issues, etc. 

These companies are motivated only by profit rather than the provision of quality, 

affordable service for people who rely on transit. 

False Promises 

Transit privatization is based on questionable and at times false assumptions regarding competition, cost, and the mechanisms used to calculate these and other 

matters. No one in private sector would contract out a crucial internal operation 

without knowing the full scope of management issues. The public sector deserves 

the same respect. Private firms don’t typically contract out work that involves their 

core customer base directly nor do they give control of their capital equipment to 

outsiders. For contracting out to work in public transit, that is precisely what is required. 

In the 1980s, private transit providers, promising that competition would drive up 

efficiency, often cited assumptions about so-called public sector ‘‘monopolies’’ and the 

lack of incentives for public sector workers to perform at a high level. However, over 

time, due to the unique nature of the transit industry, the multiple private companies involved in transit have shrunk to just a handful as huge foreign corporations 

have absorbed many small private providers. As a result, ironically, it is now these 

private companies that have a monopoly on transit outsourcing, and they have in 

fact lost the incentive to provide high quality service. They enter into long-term contracts with no accountability, cutting corners wherever possible, leading to major 

service, maintenance, and safety issues. 

Hidden Costs 

According to a study of data from the National Transit Database, privatized systems pay drivers far less, and offer fewer benefits than public agencies. By offering 

reduced benefits and wages, private transit operators claim to offer higher labor efficiency—the same level of service at a lower cost. However, contracted transit workers work more overtime than publicly employed transit workers, which can undercut 

much of the labor savings. Moreover, private contractors have higher insurance and 

training costs in part because they have significantly higher turnover rates. 25

Monitoring the contractors is also a significant hidden cost of privatization. For 

example, in March 2013, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 

signed a contract with a private company to oversee the performance of the three 

transit contractors that operate its ADA paratransit services—a contract to monitor 

the contractors! 26

The most efficient way to guard against these hidden costs is to require transit 

grant recipients to use the ‘‘Avoidable Cost Model’’ of accounting to determine the 

actual cost of providing a service. 27 This model acts to properly include costs such 

as public management oversight of the private provider and other transaction costs 

including the loss of in-house expertise, severance payments to end existing public 

service, and increased insurance and training costs associated with high turnover. 

The Avoidable Cost Model can better identify potential savings from variable costs 

while properly quantifying fixed costs between the public and private alternatives. 

It is the most accurate method to analyze the full costs of specific transit privatization schemes. To ensure that public dollars are spent wisely and efficiently, policy 

makers need to establish parameters that will measure the broadest costs of an alternate privatization scheme to a public service. 

Outsourcing Conclusions 

The Federal Government should not intrude on local decision making in transit. 

Mandated or minimum provisions on competitive bidding without appropriate standards for decision making serves to reduce the standard of living for workers and diVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Dec 19, 2014 Jkt 046629 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 L:\HEARINGS 2014\03-06 Z DISTILL\30614.TXT JASON
58 

28 ‘‘Public Transit: Transit Agencies’ Use of Contracting to Provide Service’’. Government Accountability Office, September 2013. 

minish the transportation service provided to communities. It can also result in 

turnover, safety, and security issues. Careful scrutiny is needed. 

The incredibly open and honest private companies’ selling point to cities is to provide savings by paying workers less, eliminating pensions and offering fewer benefits, deterring employees from remaining at transit agencies long enough to reach 

the top of the pay scale. This is about taking a professional workforce and turning 

it into a part time job, not appropriate for an industry where employees are driving 

massive vehicles and entrusted with the lives of millions of passengers each day. 

Policy makers need to take a close look at what these private companies are doing 

to our transit systems and the impact that these arrangements are having on working families. We need to ensure that transportation in our communities is not further diminished. 

ATU Supports: 

• Repealing provisions of current law that provide an unfair advantage to private 

contractors, including those that basically require FTA to become a marketing 

arm of the private sector. 

• Requiring use of the Avoidable Cost Model in determining whether to outsource 

public transit services. 

• Ensuring that the methodology and criteria for service selection and final decisions must continue to be left to local decision makers, consistent with applicable laws, collective bargaining agreements, and other pertinent agreements. 

Transit Labor Protections 

Preserve Section 13(c) Transit Employee Labor Protections 

The U.S. public transportation industry has experienced remarkable labor relations stability during the 50 years of the Federal transit program. This has allowed 

transit employees to go about the business of their most important role: Moving 

America Safely. 

The basis for five decades of labor-management cooperation is Section 5333(b) of 

Title 49 of the United States Code (formerly Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit 

Act), which states that when Federal funds, most recently authorized under MAP– 

21, are used to acquire, improve or operate a transit system, there must be arrangements to protect the rights of affected transit employees. 

The crucial so-called Section 13(c) provisions ensure the continuation of collective 

bargaining rights and benefits for nearly 360,000 urban, suburban, and rural transit 

employees under existing collective bargaining agreements. The statute protects 

transit workers from adverse effects that may arise when Federal dollars are invested in their local transit systems. This sensible, balanced system fosters unmatched labor-management stability, ensuring a highly trained, experienced, safe, 

and professional workforce, allowing for the development of significant technological, 

structural, and productivity improvements. 

Federal reports concerning Section 13(c) have found that the provision has functioned exactly as intended, and has not interfered with the efficient provision of 

transit services, clearly substantiating the ATU’s long-standing position that Section 

13(c), while providing important collective bargaining and job protection, has helped 

to improve working relationships between management and labor. 

No Obstacle To Contracting Out 

Historically, one of the major issues raised by Section 13(c) critics has been that 

it impairs the ability of transit agencies to contract out for transit services. This is 

absolutely not true. As stated in a 2013 GAO report on contracting out (mandated 

by MAP–21), ‘‘According to officials at DOL, after a search of their records and to 

the best of their knowledge, there has never been an instance where a transit agency has been unable to contract out public transit operations and other services because doing so would jeopardize Section 13(c) certification from DOL.’’ 28

ATU Supports: 

• Continuation of the critical transit employee labor protections provided by Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act. 

• Application of Section 13(c) protections to any new Federal transit programs or 

innovative financing mechanisms created through MAP–21’s reauthorization. 

59 

29 U.S. DOT Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, November, 2009. 30 ‘‘Paying for Safety: An Economic Analysis of the Effect of Compensation on Truck Driver 

Safety’’, Michael H. Belzer, 2002. 

Sudden Death Overtime: A Commonsense Bus Safety Proposal 

In response to a recent spike in fatal intercity bus accidents, the U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT) in December of 2013 announced a national crackdown to 

take unscrupulous bus operators off the road. Regulatory authorities had taken 

similar measures in 2011 after a string of fatal bus crashes. 

While it is appropriate for law enforcement to continue the crackdown to protect 

the safety of over-the-road bus passengers, these steps do not even begin to address 

the core issue which is at the root of intercity bus crashes which annually kill about 

50 people in the U.S. and injure approximately 1,000 other innocent passengers who 

are simply hoping to get to their destination in the least expensive way possible. 

The current safety issues plaguing intercity buses are directly linked to driver fatigue. 

Three Times as Many Killed on Buses Than Airplanes 

When a commercial airplane crashes it is a major news story and most media outlets will cover the event 24–7. When a fatal bus accident occurs it is usually a 1- 

day story that receives minimal media attention. The 2009 Colgan Air accident in 

Buffalo, which took 50 lives, and the San Francisco Asiana Airlines crash of 2013 

in which three died are the only major airline crashes in the last few years. Meanwhile there have been numerous bus accidents including the horrific Bronx accident 

that killed 15, the Virginia crash killing 4 and countless others. In fact, over the 

last decade three times as many people were killed as a result of intercity bus accidents as compared to commercial airline crashes. 

Low Wages, Extreme Fatigue 

When an intercity bus crashes, especially when no other vehicles are involved in 

the accident, there is a high likelihood that the driver of that bus fell asleep at the 

wheel. Hundreds of nonunion intercity bus companies—usually tiny operations that 

have only a few buses—typically pay their drivers incredibly low wages. As a result, 

bus drivers are being forced to work 100 hours a week or more just to make a living. 

If they are not driving a bus for that many hours, there is an excellent chance that 

the driver works two or three other jobs in order to make ends meet. Unsuspecting 

customers simply do not know that they are riding with drivers who are falling 

asleep because they never rest. 

According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), driver related 

problems are responsible for 60 percent of the fatalities occurring in crashes, while 

the condition of the vehicle accounts for only 20 percent of the fatalities. Driver fatigue is responsible for a staggering 36 percent of the fatalities. It is the number 

one cause of fatal accidents, far above road conditions (2 percent) and inattention 

(6 percent). 29

Fair Labor Standards Act Exemption 

Under the FLSA, covered nonexempt employees must receive overtime pay for 

hours worked over 40 per workweek at a rate not less than one and one-half times 

the regular rate of pay. But Section 13(b)(1) of the FLSA provides an exemption 

from the overtime pay requirements for ‘‘Any employee with respect to whom the 

Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum 

hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, 

1935 (recodified at 49 U.S.C. 31502).’’ This exemption is applicable to drivers, helpers, loaders, or mechanics whose duties affect the safety of operation of commercial 

motor vehicles in transportation on public highways in interstate commerce. 

Congress apparently created this exemption to eliminate any conflict between the 

jurisdiction exercised by the Department of Labor over the FLSA and the mutually 

exclusive jurisdiction exercised by the Department of Transportation over hours of 

service issues. However, there is no necessary inconsistency between enforcing rigid 

maximum hours of service for safety purposes and at the same time, within those 

limitations, requiring compliance with the increased rates of pay for overtime work. 

In fact, both issues are paramount to safety, and they are clearly linked. When drivers are not paid well, including appropriate overtime rates, they are going to be 

pushed to make a living elsewhere, providing them little time to rest and turning 

them into weary operators. But only a 10 percent higher driver base pay rate leads 

to a staggering 34 percent lower probability of a crash. 30

60 

MAP–21: Ensuring That Corpses Are Strapped In 

MAP–21 required motorcoaches to be installed with safety seat belts, advanced 

glazing in each portal to prevent passenger ejection, and stability enhancing technology to reduce the number and frequency of rollover crashes, among other requirements. With its focus on seatbelts, vehicle structural integrity, and keeping unsafe 

bus owners out of business, the bill had good intentions, including many overdue 

provisions. 

Unfortunately, the bill still leaves passengers vulnerable because it ignores the 

key issue at the heart of intercity bus crashes: driver fatigue. Common sense tells 

us that while maintaining the structural integrity of a bus is critically important, 

if a 40,000 pound vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed overturns and smashes 

into a bridge or falls over a cliff, the lives of the occupants are going to be in grave 

danger, even if they are strapped in and the vehicle has the strength of a tank. 

The real problem is that bus drivers are falling asleep at the wheel because they 

are working grueling hours at abysmally low wages. And since intercity bus drivers 

are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions, many drivers are forced to work 

second jobs during their so-called ‘‘rest period’’ in order to make ends meet. 

The Driver Fatigue Prevention Act (S.487) would apply FLSA’s overtime provisions—which for decades have covered the majority of American workers—to intercity bus drivers. Coach operators would get paid fairly for the work they put in 

above 40 hours per week, making them less inclined to work other jobs while pushing their bodies to the limit. 

While FLSA’s overtime provisions cover 85 percent of the U.S. workforce, intercity 

bus drivers are exempt. 

Hours of Service and Enforcement Ineffective 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) hours of service regulations that have been in existence for decades are routinely ignored, especially by flyby-night, nonunion bus companies. The State police in general do not perform random checks of passenger buses the way they do on cargo-hauling trucks because of 

the dissatisfaction expressed by passengers when their bus gets pulled out of commission and no replacement vehicle arrives for hours. Moreover, even if police actively seek out so-called discount bus carriers, there are not nearly enough law enforcement officers to even begin the process of ridding the highways of unsafe buses. 

While periodic stings pull large numbers of vehicles off the road and generate significant press coverage, it is back to business as usual once the headlines die down. 

Far too often, the families of innocent people find out that ‘‘business as usual’’ in 

the intercity bus industry means that they will be attending a funeral instead of 

a family reunion. 

Rest: A Commonsense Approach to Safety 

Doesn’t it make sense to create economic conditions whereby drivers are fairly 

compensated for their work which exceeds 40 hours per week, making it less likely 

that they will have to resort to doctoring log books, working other jobs, and wearily 

reporting for duty with a giant cup of coffee? By doing so, fewer collisions will ultimately occur. 

ATU Supports: 

• S.487, The Driver Fatigue Prevention Act, which would apply FLSA overtime 

provisions—which for decades have covered about 85 percent of American workers—to intercity bus drivers. Coach operators would get paid fairly for the work 

they put in above 40 hours per week, making them less inclined to work other 

jobs while pushing their bodies to the limit. 

• Stronger enforcement of hours of service regulations. 

Workforce Development 

The public transportation industry, like many service-based sectors in the United 

States, will be faced with major challenges in the near future. A large percentage 

of the transit workforce—both blue and white collar—will be retiring within the 

next few years. There is no pipeline of replacements on the horizon because the industry has a negative public image that hampers its ability to attract, recruit, and 

retain quality employees. And, for the existing workforce, new technology is rapidly 

changing the way transit agencies function, affecting every executive director, midlevel manager, bus driver and mechanic alike. Yet, relatively few programs exist to 

provide training to workers so that they can perform their jobs adequately, move 

up the career ladder, and help the Nation’s transit agencies operate at maximum 

efficiency. 

Approximately 80 percent of transit employees are: 

61 

• Bus and train operators 

• Bus mechanics 

• Rail car technicians 

• Signals technicians and traction power electricians 

• Facilities maintainers 

Yet, the industry focus is heavily skewed to white collar needs. The U.S. Department of Transportation workforce funding is focused on university programs and 

university transportation centers, but many agencies find their biggest need is 

skilled blue collar technicians, electricians, and in signals. 

Until 2012, 80 percent of FTA’s limited workforce funds went to white collar— 

16 times more per employee than blue collar. The National Transit Institute (NTI) 

is funded at $5 million per year, almost exclusively for white collar transit workforce 

training. At the same time, there is $0 for ongoing support for the frontline workforce. The equivalent of 88 percent of today’s transit workforce will have to be hired 

and trained in the next 10 years, but the transit industry and agencies lack the capacity to train the next generation of blue collar technicians. 

ATU Supports: 

• Providing support for a national frontline workforce training center, on an equal 

footing with NTI. We need to support effective standards-based training for the 

blue collar 80 percent of transit’s workforce. 

• Ending the human capital investment inequality at FTA. Include human capital 

as an ordinary part of capital grants. 

Conclusion 

ATU is now engaged in an unprecedented effort to build coalitions with the millions of people who rely on fixed route and ADA paratransit service each day to commute to work, buy groceries, get to school, visit the doctor, and attend to life’s other 

necessities. Two years ago, ATU created a 501(c)(3) organization known as American’s for Transit (A4T) to strengthen, create, and unite grassroots transit rider organizations across the United States. We aim to create a big-tent coalition of transit 

riders and supporters to address the pressing transit funding crisis in America. 

Through A4T’s efforts, there are now more than 90 transit rider groups all across 

the U.S., partnering with labor, chambers of commerce, faith-based groups, environmentalists, and others in an effort to expand and improve transit options for Americans. 

Transit riders and other stakeholders across the United States, who have already 

made themselves heard at the ballot box, raising their own taxes in support of transit measures that have poured millions of dollars into their communities, are now 

developing their voices just in time for the reauthorization debate in Washington, 

and within the next year, Members of Congress will be hearing from our partners 

outside the Beltway with a message that is plain and clear: the American people 

want expanded, high quality, and safe public transportation. 

Congress now has the opportunity to put partisan issues aside and provide America with an economic boost through a strong, well-planned Federal transit program 

that puts the interests of riders above those of private, foreign corporations. If policy 

makers do not approve a massive increase in transit funding and adopt policies that 

allow transit systems to use their funds more wisely, we will continue to stand in 

place and our urban centers will be paralyzed within decades. 

Above all else, Congress has an obligation to ensure that passenger safety is paramount in both intracity as well as intercity bus transportation, and ensuring the 

well-being of the operator is key to that objective. Unfortunately, current policies 

are not achieving that goal, and immediate change is necessary to protect the riding 

public. 

ATU looks forward to working with Congress, as we have since 1964, in support 

of a new bill that will address our Nation’s mobility needs for another 50 years, and 

beyond. 

62 

APPENDIX: SUMMARY OF ATU POSITIONS 

Increased Funding 

ATU Supports: 

• Funding public transportation at $119 billion over the next 6 years, more than 

doubling the commitment to transit in SAFETEA–LU, as called for in President 

Obama’s surface transportation reauthorization proposal released prior to 

MAP–21 (FY2012 Budget). 

Funding Sources: 

Gas Tax 

• H.R. 3636, the Update, Promote, and Develop America’s Transportation Essentials Act of 2013, which would phase in a 15 cent/gallon tax increase over the 

next 3 years on gasoline and diesel. 

Robin Hood Tax 

• H.R. 1579, the Inclusive Prosperity Act to impose a tax on certain financial 

transactions to strengthen our financial security, reduce market volatility, expand opportunity, and stop shrinking the middle class. This proposal, also 

known as the ‘‘Robin Hood Tax,’’ could generate billions of dollars for transportation infrastructure. 

National Infrastructure Bank 

• H.R. 2553, the National Infrastructure Development Bank Act, to responsibly 

create and fund a public bank to leverage public and private dollars for meritorious infrastructure projects of national or regional significance. 

No More Cuts 

ATU Supports: 

• Authorizing transit systems to use their Federal funding for operating assistance when needed to avoid service cuts, route eliminations, or fare increases. 

• Allowing fuel to be classified as a capital expense. 

• Eliminating the Federal tax code’s bias against people taking public transportation through inclusion of H.R. 2288, the Commuter Parity Act of 2013, to establish permanent tax credit parity between the parking and transit portions 

of the transportation fringe benefit. 

Fulfill the Promise of the ADA 

ATU Supports: 

• Creation of the TREAD Program to finally provide people with special needs 

riding paratransit the same mobility options as people who rely on fixed route 

public transportation services. 

• Meeting our commitments to veterans and military families by providing access 

to transportation options that facilitate community integration and participation. 

Enhance Transit Health and Safety 

ATU Supports: 

• Requiring newly manufactured vehicles to include workstation changes to protect operators. While airplane cockpits and train locomotives are completely off 

limits to passengers, transit buses are wide open. Driver shields, drivers’ side 

doors, and other ideas must be on the table, as should retrofitting of existing 

vehicles. Research is now ongoing to determine the best options. 

• Mandating that transit agency (bus and rail) comprehensive safety plans address assault and restroom break matters. No safety plan should be eligible for 

FTA certification unless it receives the official approval of represented employees of the grantee. Such a process will ensure a credible and enforceable plan 

that addresses the real safety concerns of all involved. 

Reject Privatization 

ATU Supports: 

• Repealing provisions of current law that provide an unfair advantage to private 

contractors, including those that basically require FTA to become a marketing 

arm of the private sector. 

63 

• Requiring use of the Avoidable Cost Model in determining whether to outsource 

public transit services. 

• Ensuring that the methodology and criteria for service selection and final decisions must continue to be left to local decision makers, consistent with applicable laws, collective bargaining agreements, and other pertinent agreements. 

Preserve Transit Labor Protections 

ATU Supports: 

• Continuation of the critical transit employee labor protections provided by Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act. 

• Application of Section 13(c) protections to any new Federal transit programs or 

innovative financing mechanisms created through MAP–21’s reauthorization. 

Address Intercity Bus Driver Fatigue 

ATU Supports: 

• S.487, The Driver Fatigue Prevention Act, which would apply FLSA overtime 

provisions—which for decades have covered about 85 percent of American workers—to intercity bus drivers. Coach operators would get paid fairly for the work 

they put in above 40 hours per week, making them less inclined to work other 

jobs while pushing their bodies to the limit. 

• Stronger enforcement of hours of service regulations. 

Support Workforce Development 

ATU Supports: 

• Providing support for a national frontline workforce training center, on an equal 

footing with NTI. We need to support effective standards-based training for the 

blue collar 80 percent of transit’s workforce. 

• Ending the human capital investment inequality at FTA. Include human capital 

as an ordinary part of capital grants. 

64 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE CONSORTIUM FOR CITIZENS WITH 

DISABILITIES 


30614023.eps
65 


30614024.eps